# Pennsylvania turning heads and becoming a destination.....due to APR institution.



## soggybtmboys

http://timesleader.com/sports/495366/pennsylvania-establishing-itself-as-a-trophy-buck-state

Apparently, hunters after initially fighting Antler Point Restrictions, are totally thrilled and they are getting on the map. Average scores have increased significantly and they are being noticed. It's nice to see a State turn themselves around and hold their ground more with destination States, it's good for the PGC, good for the State, good for the deer hunters, and very very good for business!!

Let them go, and Let them Grow!!

If Pa can do it, so can Michigan. Isn't it time we get our management in the direction of better buck hunting? Get behind APR, the future is within our grasp.


----------



## beer and nuts

The picture is a buck from 2011!


----------



## soggybtmboys

They have had apr since the start of 2002-2003 season. It is certainly an APR buck.


----------



## beer and nuts

Yea just curious why a present article would feature a 2011 buck that's all.


----------



## plugger

beer and nuts said:


> Yea just curious why a present article would feature a 2011 buck that's all.


 If you only have one in twelve years you have to get all the miles you can out of it!


----------



## soggybtmboys

Because it scored Boone and Crockett, it clearly stated that is was like 6th biggest ever taken in PA. I would think that is significant t since it was under the APR regs.


----------



## cdacker

soggybtmboys said:


> They have had apr since the start of 2002-2003 season. It is certainly an APR buck.


That's impossible. They should have nothing but basket 8's due to high grading


----------



## Munsterlndr

And CWD continues to spread in PA via yearling dispersal, potentially facilitated by the APR's in place there.


----------



## soggybtmboys

Potentially? Go fish, your not an authority.


----------



## mbrewer

soggybtmboys said:


> http://timesleader.com/sports/495366/pennsylvania-establishing-itself-as-a-trophy-buck-state
> 
> Apparently, hunters after initially fighting Antler Point Restrictions, are totally thrilled and they are getting on the map. Average scores have increased significantly and they are being noticed. It's nice to see a State turn themselves around and hold their ground more with destination States, it's good for the PGC, good for the State, good for the deer hunters, and very very good for business!!
> 
> Let them go, and Let them Grow!!
> 
> If Pa can do it, so can Michigan. Isn't it time we get our management in the direction of better buck hunting? Get behind APR, the future is within our grasp.



"We hold these truths to be self evident"...but just in case...lol


----------



## NorthWoodsHunter

That didn't take long...


----------



## Luv2hunteup

beer and nuts said:


> The picture is a buck from 2011!


Imagine what it would have looked like if he let him mature.


----------



## Hillsdales Most Wanted

If Pennsylvania can do it so can we!! We're way better hunters than them Penn guys. Let em go let em grow!!


----------



## Waif

[The first deer the(PA.) Game Commission purchased were 50 from Michigan in 1906. In total, the agency bought and released 417 Michigan deer from 1906 to 1925. But it also bought and released 524 from Pennsylvania propagators; 84 from New Hampshire; New Jersey, 64; North Carolina, 50; Maine, 21; Ohio, 16; and Kentucky, 16; Although there are no reliable records on where all of these deer were released, many went to state's northern tier mountainous areas, because that's where deer camps were. The state's southwestern counties, including Greene, didn't receive much management consideration then because they were deer ghost towns. Ironically, Greene County and many other southwestern Pennsylvania counties today have healthy deer populations.]


----------



## Munsterlndr

soggybtmboys said:


> Potentially? Go fish, your not an authority.


You don't need to be an authority Dean, to be able to look at scientific data and reach obvious conclusions. 

Here is what a couple of very well known Pennsylvania Biologists and whitetail researchers say about dispersal;

_"In applied ecology, the study of dispersal is fundamental to understanding such
problems as the spread of diseases, invasions of exotic species, and escape of genetically modified organisms (Bullock et al. 2002a). Dispersal has been suggested as a primary means of spreading disease among populations, and dispersal distance is an important parameter in many mammalian disease spread models (Hansson 1992)."

"Juvenile dispersal is likely an important mechanism for disease transmission among individuals and populations of mammals (Barlow 1993, Gross and Miller 2001, Byrom 2002), especially in species such as white-tailed deer, where long-distance movements of adults are rare, although some northern populations do exhibit seasonal migratory movements in response to harsh winter weather (Nelson 1998). White-tailed deer are known to be reservoirs for a number of ecologically and economically important diseases, such as bovine tuberculosis, Lyme disease, and chronic wasting disease (CWD), a transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (Miller et al. 2000, Gross and Miller 2001, O’Brien et al. 2002, Piesman 2002). Further, dispersal likely plays an important role in inter-population transmission of these diseases (Gross and Miller 2001)." Diefenbach, Rosenberry, et. al. - _Modeling dispersal distances in male whitetail deer.

Interesting to note that the previous CWD zone had to be enlarged this year due to the finding of a CWD yearling buck close to the boundary of the previous zone. It's also interesting to note that the only reason that yearling buck was found to be positive was that he was hit by a car. By protecting yearlings with an APR, the potential for the spread of the disease is increased, as has been recognized by Missouri, which removed APR's in the area where CWD was found in free ranging deer, specifically for that reason.

You figure it out. Yearling dispersal is a recognized mechanism for the transmission of disease and APR protect yearling bucks from being harvested by hunters. As states like Pennsylvania, Illinois, Missouri and West Virginia have found, CWD positive yearling bucks have increased the geographic scope of outbreaks in recent years by being found some distance from previously found postitive clusters.

But hey, antlers are pretty important so the hell with any disease concerns and bring on those APR's right?


----------



## gatorman841

PA been a solid state for sometime a friend I used to lease to would hunt there for a week every year on their gun opener. Their group of 6 always get a cpl or few over 130" every year, tough hunting with big steep hills but very rewarding.


----------



## Waif

This is from ask the biologist on the P.G.C. site. Regarding yearling dispersal.

Based on research conducted in Pennsylvania and elsewhere, there is some evidence that removing the mother can reduce dispersal by young males during the spring fawning season. However, during the fall, when young males also disperse, social pressures from other males appear to be the most important factor. The end result is that between 6 months and 16-18 months of age, about 70% of young bucks will disperse an average of 3 to 6 miles regardless of whether their mother was killed.


----------



## trophy18

Everyone knows you don't like apr's Munster ....we get it.


----------



## FREEPOP

What about the other 5 that were bigger?


----------



## Munsterlndr

trophy18 said:


> Everyone knows you don't like apr's Munster ....we get it.


Also not a big fan of disease in the deer herd, just in case you missed it.


----------



## kroppe

APRs and CWD be darned, my son and I will be in the big woods of Potter County in north central PA in 2 weeks for his first deer hunt. Hope to connect with Mr. Big. Will report.


----------



## hitechman

soggybtmboys said:


> Because it scored Boone and Crockett, it clearly stated that is was like 6th biggest ever taken in PA. I would think that is significant t since it was under the APR regs.


Were the 5 other bigger ones also APR results?

Steve


----------



## kroppe

hitechman said:


> Were the 5 other bigger ones also APR results?
> 
> Steve


It doesn't appear that way. 

http://blog.pennlive.com/pa-sportsm...n_new_pennsylvania_big_game_records_book.html


----------



## 2508speed

The solution is to go hunt Pennsylvania. Let me shoot my 4 pt. here in Michigan.


----------



## ryan-b

http://www.pgcapps.pa.gov/pbgr/
You can look and judge for yourselves if aprs have a effect on thier numbers. Aprs started 2002


----------



## 357Maximum

2508speed said:


> The solution is to go hunt Pennsylvania. Let me shoot my 4 pt. here in Michigan.



First good suggestion I have seen on any of theses threads. I would go around Cleveland on your way there, what a mess.


----------



## johnhunter247

2508speed said:


> The solution is to go hunt Pennsylvania. Let me shoot my 4 pt. here in Michigan.


That's spot on and the reason why I spend the majority of my time in other states. Pure Michigan... I'm not knocking you. To each his own. That mentality has been bred for generations. That was my dad and my grandpa. I guess I have just always wanted more out of hunting. You have the right to shoot any legal buck you want. I would love to shoot mature bucks here every year but I get lots of enjoyment out of hunting different deer herds in other states. You can tell the difference in the mentality of the deer where they aren't pressured to death like they are here.


----------



## hartman756

johnhunter247 said:


> That's spot on and the reason why I spend the majority of my time in other states. Pure Michigan... I'm not knocking you. To each his own. That mentality has been bred for generations. That was my dad and my grandpa. I guess I have just always wanted more out of hunting. You have the right to shoot any legal buck you want. I would love to shoot mature bucks here every year but I get lots of enjoyment out of hunting different deer herds in other states. You can tell the difference in the mentality of the deer where they aren't pressured to death like they are here.


Why aren't you saving a bunch of money and hunting the MARs zone right here in Michigan?


----------



## bucko12pt

Munsterlndr said:


> Also not a big fan of disease in the deer herd, just in case you missed it.


But you're a big fan of baiting, which is at least as big a risk as APR's are. How come no noise about eliminating baiting?

It's much more likely that CWD started at an enclosed game ranch than APR's being the cause.


----------



## Tfuscg

I'm from pa and now stationed in mi. The three on one side has for sure helped in pa. You are seeing much more nicer bucks. Even though it's been that way for quite some time it took awhile to show positive results. Also it's a one buck deal period were I'm from. If you shoot your buck during archery your'e done. There's also no baiting. The hunting is good but again it's good in mi too. You want tons of deer hunt nj believe it or not. Unlimited doe two a day. Three bucks with the bow and can get another or two with the guns.


----------



## 2508speed

johnhunter247 said:


> That's spot on and the reason why I spend the majority of my time in other states. Pure Michigan... I'm not knocking you. To each his own. That mentality has been bred for generations. That was my dad and my grandpa. I guess I have just always wanted more out of hunting. You have the right to shoot any legal buck you want. I would love to shoot mature bucks here every year but I get lots of enjoyment out of hunting different deer herds in other states. You can tell the difference in the mentality of the deer where they aren't pressured to death like they are here.


Michigan bucks are much more wary than those Kansas ditch bucks. Anyone can leave Mich. and shoot a trophy buck. Any 8 pt. in Mi. after Nov. 20 is equal to a Booner in Kansas. IMO only.


----------



## 2508speed

bucko12pt said:


> But you're a big fan of baiting, which is at least as big a risk as APR's are. How come no noise about eliminating baiting?
> 
> It's much more likely that CWD started at an enclosed game ranch than APR's being the cause.


Comparing legal baiting and enclosed game ranches is a stretch. If CWD started in a game ranch let's eliminate game ranches.


----------



## 357Maximum

Tfuscg said:


> I'm from pa and now stationed in mi. The three on one side has for sure helped in pa. You are seeing much more nicer bucks. Even though it's been that way for quite some time it took awhile to show positive results. Also it's a one buck deal period were I'm from. If you shoot your buck during archery your'e done. There's also no baiting. The hunting is good but again it's good in mi too. You want tons of deer hunt nj believe it or not. Unlimited doe two a day. Three bucks with the bow and can get another or two with the guns.



THANK YOU for your service. I did not know that about NJ, so thanks again. Apples and oranges, but I still learnt something.


----------



## 357Maximum

2508speed said:


> Michigan bucks are much more wary than those Kansas ditch bucks. Anyone can leave Mich. and shoot a trophy buck. Any 8 pt. in Mi. after Nov. 20 is equal to a Booner in Kansas. IMO only.



I am sure most of them know that, that's not the issue. They want someone else to finance that dream for them. THAT'S THE ISSUE


----------



## Munsterlndr

bucko12pt said:


> But you're a big fan of baiting, which is at least as big a risk as APR's are. How come no noise about eliminating baiting?
> 
> It's much more likely that CWD started at an enclosed game ranch than APR's being the cause.


Keep making stuff up Vern, it's par for the course. I'm been very open about supporting baiting bans anywhere disease has been found or is reasonably at risk. Silly to try and claim otherwise since I've spoken to that effect in front of the NRC and lobbied for keeping restrictions in place in the NELP when the decision was made to allow baiting in a part of that area. 

How CWD was introduced is moot once it's in the free ranging population, then preventing it's spread needs to be the focus and you and others who continue to support keeping APR's in place where CWD is a known issue are part of the problem, not part of the solution.


----------



## soggybtmboys

hitechman said:


> Were the 5 other bigger ones also APR results?
> 
> Steve


Read much? What did the article say about average scores increasing? What did it say about 2.5 yr olds making up a better portion of the harvest and their weights?

Lol, APR are working and you guys hate it. Hunters want them, the PGA loves them and so do businesses. APR is coming to Michigan and you guys will love them in due time.


----------



## johnhunter247

hartman756 said:


> Why aren't you saving a bunch of money and hunting the MARs zone right here in Michigan?


If they start knocking down a lot of 160ish + deer and 5 yr old plus deer I might. But with that said Michigan will never be Iowa and that's where my heart is at


----------



## soggybtmboys

Munsterlndr said:


> You don't need to be an authority Dean, to be able to look at scientific data and reach obvious conclusions.
> 
> Here is what a couple of very well known Pennsylvania Biologists and whitetail researchers say about dispersal;
> 
> _"In applied ecology, the study of dispersal is fundamental to understanding such
> problems as the spread of diseases, invasions of exotic species, and escape of genetically modified organisms (Bullock et al. 2002a). Dispersal has been suggested as a primary means of spreading disease among populations, and dispersal distance is an important parameter in many mammalian disease spread models (Hansson 1992)."
> 
> "Juvenile dispersal is likely an important mechanism for disease transmission among individuals and populations of mammals (Barlow 1993, Gross and Miller 2001, Byrom 2002), especially in species such as white-tailed deer, where long-distance movements of adults are rare, although some northern populations do exhibit seasonal migratory movements in response to harsh winter weather (Nelson 1998). White-tailed deer are known to be reservoirs for a number of ecologically and economically important diseases, such as bovine tuberculosis, Lyme disease, and chronic wasting disease (CWD), a transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (Miller et al. 2000, Gross and Miller 2001, O’Brien et al. 2002, Piesman 2002). Further, dispersal likely plays an important role in inter-population transmission of these diseases (Gross and Miller 2001)." Diefenbach, Rosenberry, et. al. - _Modeling dispersal distances in male whitetail deer.
> 
> Interesting to note that the previous CWD zone had to be enlarged this year due to the finding of a CWD yearling buck close to the boundary of the previous zone. It's also interesting to note that the only reason that yearling buck was found to be positive was that he was hit by a car. By protecting yearlings with an APR, the potential for the spread of the disease is increased, as has been recognized by Missouri, which removed APR's in the area where CWD was found in free ranging deer, specifically for that reason.
> 
> You figure it out. Yearling dispersal is a recognized mechanism for the transmission of disease and APR protect yearling bucks from being harvested by hunters. As states like Pennsylvania, Illinois, Missouri and West Virginia have found, CWD positive yearling bucks have increased the geographic scope of outbreaks in recent years by being found some distance from previously found postitive clusters.
> 
> But hey, antlers are pretty important so the hell with any disease concerns and bring on those APR's right?


Ah yes, the outhouse biologist and self appointed disease expert is here. 

What was the article about? Stick to the topic Jim, or go have a seat in the corner. I'm quite certain the PGC is on top of any issues in their jurisdiction that is a concern. The article is about a success story, and the reason is because of antler point restrictions, and Pennsylvania is quite happy with then. Michigan will be too when they are implemented.


----------



## soggybtmboys

“What we’re getting is what we’re going to see for the foreseeable future,” said Bob D’Angelo, an official Boone & Crockett Club scorer and coordinator for the Pennsylvania Game Commission’s Big Game Scoring Program. “But we’re doing it the right way.”

Since antler restrictions were enacted by the PGC prior to the 2002-03 hunting season, a hunter’s perception of a big buck has changed. Prior to antler restrictions, any buck with multiple points was often enough to get a hunter excited, D’Angelo said. Today, as more bucks grow a year older thanks to antler restrictions, hunters are seeing bucks that once were considered once-in-a-lifetime trophies more frequently.


Who in the hell isn't interested in that??


----------



## johnhunter247

357Maximum said:


> I am sure most of them know that, that's not the issue. They want someone else to finance that dream for them. THAT'S THE ISSUE


If you want to come and finance my farm that I am buying in Iowa I will let you come and experience the best whitetail hunting this country has to offer...


----------



## Munsterlndr

soggybtmboys said:


> Ah yes, the outhouse biologist and self appointed disease expert is here.
> 
> What was the article about? Stick to the topic Jim, or go have a seat in the corner. I'm quite certain the PGC is on top of any issues in their jurisdiction that is a concern. The article is about a success story, and the reason is because of antler point restrictions, and Pennsylvania is quite happy with then. Michigan will be too when they are implemented.


Hey Dean, last time I looked you are not a mod here and don't get to dictate your whims to other members. The topic that you are pushing is APR's in PA as a "success" story. The fact that they may contribute to the spread of CWD in PA calls into question whether they are as much of a success as your article makes them out to be. If you don't like my comments in the thread, feel free to ignore them, they are not posted for your benefit but for those who have an open mind and have the intellectual honesty to recognize that both good things and bad things can result from these types of regulations.


----------



## johnhunter247

johnhunter247 said:


> If you want to come and finance my farm that I am buying in Iowa I will let you come and experience the best whitetail hunting this country has to offer...


That was a joke!  I am going to build my own whitetail paradise with no one's funds but my own!


----------



## 357Maximum

johnhunter247 said:


> If you want to come and finance my farm that I am buying in Iowa I will let you come and experience the best whitetail hunting this country has to offer...


I am pretty happy with my property here in Michigan and I can see enough corn from it to serve me just fine thank you. Just wish everyone would quit trying to change it to death. Iowa will never be Michigan and Michigan will never be Iowa. APPLES AND ORANGES population densities ensure that as much as any other factor likely. 

Honestly I am still following these threads just trying to figure out the mindset that would allow one person to take something from another guilt free, "financing" does not always mean money. I spent my money right here for a reason, but thanks for the offer. Not sure you could fit many deer on what I have left that you could use to finance your Iowa oasis anyway. I do wish you great luck in finding what you seek out there however.


----------



## 357Maximum

johnhunter247 said:


> That was a joke!  I am going to build my own whitetail paradise with no one's funds but my own!



I knew that. I thought it funny.


----------



## hitechman

soggybtmboys said:


> Read much? What did the article say about average scores increasing? What did it say about 2.5 yr olds making up a better portion of the harvest and their weights?
> 
> Lol, APR are working and you guys hate it. Hunters want them, the PGA loves them and so do businesses. APR is coming to Michigan and you guys will love them in due time.


Geeze soggy, are your depends a size too small? Ya, I can read, and it said nothing about the 5 larger deer. I asked a legitimate question (or so I thought). I was just wondering if those were older or newer records--nothing more nothing less, and you read antiAPR into that. I didn't realize there was a subliminal message in my question.

BTW.....thanks kroppe for answering my question.

Steve


----------



## soggybtmboys

Munsterlndr said:


> Hey Dean, last time I looked you are not a mod here and don't get to dictate your whims to other members. The topic that you are pushing is APR's in PA as a "success" story. The fact that they may contribute to the spread of CWD in PA calls into question whether they are as much of a success as your article makes them out to be. If you don't like my comments in the thread, feel free to ignore them, they are not posted for your benefit but for those who have an open mind and have the intellectual honesty to recognize that both good things and bad things can result from these types of regulations.


I'm free to express myself how I choose, you aren't staying on topic. If you have an issue with the article, I suggest you contact the author or the PGC, which is very pleased with their APR success. 

Did APR cause the CWD occurrence in Kent county? No
Did APR cause the CWD occurence (s) outside of Lansing? No

Your strawman is on fire.


----------



## 2508speed

johnhunter247 said:


> If you want to come and finance my farm that I am buying in Iowa I will let you come and experience the best whitetail hunting this country has to offer...


Depends. I don't want to hunt a farm. I want to hunt in the woods. You hunt your way and I'll hunt my way. I'm happy with any legal deer in Michigan. Why would I go to Iowa to hunt deer when I can hunt them here? Unless I'm a trophy hunter it makes no sense to me. To each his own.


----------



## DirtySteve

hitechman said:


> Geeze soggy, are your depends a size too small? Ya, I can read, and it said nothing about the 5 larger deer. I asked a legitimate question (or so I thought). I was just wondering if those were older or newer records--nothing more nothing less, and you read antiAPR into that. I didn't realize there was a subliminal message in my question.
> 
> BTW.....thanks kroppe for answering my question.
> 
> Steve



Not sure about all of the other 5 but the state record in pensylvania has been broken twice since 2003. Once in 2004 and again in 2014. Prior to that the record stood since the early 1940'S.


----------



## hitechman

DirtySteve said:


> Not sure about all of the other 5 but the state record in pensylvania has been broken twice since 2003. Once in 2004 and again in 2014. Prior to that the record stood since the early 1940'S.


Thank you.............I looked a little bit on the web, but could find nothing.

Steve


----------



## bucko12pt

Munsterlndr said:


> Keep making stuff up Vern, it's par for the course. I'm been very open about supporting baiting bans anywhere disease has been found or is reasonably at risk. Silly to try and claim otherwise since I've spoken to that effect in front of the NRC and lobbied for keeping restrictions in place in the NELP when the decision was made to allow baiting in a part of that area.
> 
> How CWD was introduced is moot once it's in the free ranging population, then preventing it's spread needs to be the focus and you and others who continue to support keeping APR's in place where CWD is a known issue are part of the problem, not part of the solution.


If baiting is a risk factor in spreading disease why aren't you in favor of being proactive and eliminating it before disease spreads to new areas? Let me guess............it's the only way you know how to hunt. 

Show me where I've stated I support APR's where CWD is a known issue, I haven't. 

Speaking of making BS up, you're the master of that!!


----------



## bucko12pt

2508speed said:


> Comparing legal baiting and enclosed game ranches is a stretch. If CWD started in a game ranch let's eliminate game ranches.


It's pretty well accepted that baiting leads to the spread if diseases. 

If you want to start the movement to eliminate game ranches in Michigan, I'll gladly sign the petition.


----------



## beer and nuts

> I'm from pa and now stationed in mi. The three on one side has for sure helped in pa. You are seeing much more nicer bucks. Even though it's been that way for quite some time it took awhile to show positive results. Also it's a one buck deal period were I'm from. If you shoot your buck during archery your'e done. There's also no baiting. The hunting is good but again it's good in mi too. You want tons of deer hunt nj believe it or not. Unlimited doe two a day. Three bucks with the bow and can get another or two with the guns.


 good post and thanks for service. Revealing stuff, One buck restriction, and of course....it's good in mi too!!! Yup.


----------



## soggybtmboys

Most of the deer that Conway scores are taken by hunters in northeastern Pennsylvania. A lot of them, he said, score in the 125 to 135 range, which is a respectable deer.

That wasn’t always the case. Conway said the scoring sessions he worked prior to antler restrictions, which included bucks from several decades, consisted mainly of those scoring between 100 to 110.

“If you don’t shoot the smaller antlered deer, in another year or two they turn into tremendous animals. It doesn’t take long,” he said. “I never thought in my life we’d see bucks like this coming out of northeastern Pennsylvania.”


----------



## Munsterlndr

soggybtmboys said:


> I'm free to express myself how I choose, you aren't staying on topic. If you have an issue with the article, I suggest you contact the author or the PGC, which is very pleased with their APR success.
> 
> Did APR cause the CWD occurrence in Kent county? No
> Did APR cause the CWD occurence (s) outside of Lansing? No
> 
> Your strawman is on fire.


The topic of the thread is APR's in PA, which includes discussion of the good, the bad and the ugly. Ignoring the ugly fact that APR's are a bad idea in areas where CWD has been found in the free ranging herd is the equivalent of an ostrich sticking it's head in the sand. 

Nobody suggested that APR CAUSES CWD, that's a strawman of epic proportions but credible biologists recognize that APR's can facilitate the spread of CWD and every sportsman with integrity should be supporting every possible effort to limit the spread of CWD, instead of encouraging policies that can contribute to it's negative impact.


----------



## Munsterlndr

TreeDizzle said:


> How can you state that the APRs are the direct cause to the CWD???
> 
> Sounds very similar to another question someone asked, how can we link big bucks on social media pages as a direct cause of APRs in Michigan....hmmm.
> 
> I am certain that there are a number of factors leading to CWD.


Nobody said that APR's are the direct cause of CWD, where did you read anything remotely resembling that? What was stated was the fact that APR's can facilitate the spread of CWD AFTER it has been found in free ranging deer herds. 

I'm not suggesting that PA should do away with the APR's that they have in place in most of the state but it's irresponsible for the PGC to continue to keep APR's in place in the established CWD contamination zone and it's highly likely that they will contribute to the spread of the disease in the future by protecting yearling bucks afflicted with the disease, allowing them to disperse and increase the geographic scope of the outbreak.


----------



## FREEPOP

soggybtmboys said:


> I'm free to express myself how I choose, you aren't staying on topic. If you have an issue with the article, I suggest you contact the author or the PGC, which is very pleased with their APR success.
> 
> Did APR cause the CWD occurrence in Kent county? No
> Did APR cause the CWD occurence (s) outside of Lansing? No
> 
> Your strawman is on fire.


Not really. You can express yourself within the rules of the forum and your derogatory comments earlier were flirting with the "line", IMO. 
It was obvious you couldn't come up with anything of substance so you resorted to insults.


----------



## ryan-b

If anyone want to see for themselve what PAs records are and when they were set i posted a link but ill post it again. Sure were alot prior to 2002 
http://www.pgcapps.pa.gov/pbgr/
The most telling id say is the firearm records. Seeing that bow hunting just became euber popular in the last 10-12 years.


----------



## swampbuck

Munsterlndr said:


> Nobody said that APR's are the direct cause of CWD, where did you read anything remotely resembling that? What was stated was the fact that APR's can facilitate the spread of CWD AFTER it has been found in free ranging deer herds.
> 
> I'm not suggesting that PA should do away with the APR's that they have in place in most of the state but it's irresponsible for the PGC to continue to keep APR's in place in the established CWD contamination zone and it's highly likely that they will contribute to the spread of the disease in the future by protecting yearling bucks afflicted with the disease, allowing them to disperse and increase the geographic scope of the outbreak.


I would be more concerned about the spread of CWD, before it is found. By the time it is discovered it's too late.


----------



## brushbuster

Munsterlndr said:


> The topic of the thread is APR's in PA, which includes discussion of the good, the bad and the ugly. Ignoring the ugly fact that APR's are a bad idea in areas where CWD has been found in the free ranging herd is the equivalent of an ostrich sticking it's head in the sand.
> 
> Nobody suggested that APR CAUSES CWD, that's a strawman of epic proportions but credible biologists recognize that APR's can facilitate the spread of CWD and every sportsman with integrity should be supporting every possible effort to limit the spread of CWD, instead of encouraging policies that can contribute to it's negative impact.


Like baiting? Only where disease is not present right? Then APRs should be good where disease is not present right?


----------



## TreeDizzle

Munsterlndr said:


> The topic of the thread is APR's in PA, which includes discussion of the good, the bad and the ugly. Ignoring the ugly fact that APR's are a bad idea in areas where CWD has been found in the free ranging herd is the equivalent of an ostrich sticking it's head in the sand.
> 
> Nobody suggested that APR CAUSES CWD, that's a strawman of epic proportions but credible biologists recognize that APR's can facilitate the spread of CWD and every sportsman with integrity should be supporting every possible effort to limit the spread of CWD, instead of encouraging policies that can contribute to it's negative impact.


You should also be fighting against the number of other factors that lead to CWD.


Munsterlndr said:


> Nobody said that APR's are the direct cause of CWD, where did you read anything remotely resembling that? What was stated was the fact that APR's can facilitate the spread of CWD AFTER it has been found in free ranging deer herds.
> 
> I'm not suggesting that PA should do away with the APR's that they have in place in most of the state but it's irresponsible for the PGC to continue to keep APR's in place in the established CWD contamination zone and it's highly likely that they will contribute to the spread of the disease in the future by protecting yearling bucks afflicted with the disease, allowing them to disperse and increase the geographic scope of the outbreak.


Then why is your focus of conversation ALWAYS directly focused on APRs?? Why don't you enlighten everyone on the other causes of CWD and rally against baiting?


----------



## 357Maximum

TreeDizzle said:


> protecting the majority of 1.5 yrs olds is a starting point to show the masses that giving a buck another year, it will grow exponentially. The same goes for age 2.5 to 3.5. The difficulty is the ability to judge beyond that though. Who's to say that in 5 years, many hunters find that they have killed enough 2.5 year olds that they want to challenge themselves and chase a truly mature animal. This is the journey that I have been on personally. But if killing a 2.5 yr old is a true challenge because most are dead before they reach that age, then why would anyone raise the bar?



Sound familiar?

http://www.drugfreeworld.org/drugfacts/crackcocaine/why-is-crack-cocaine-so-highly-addictive.html


----------



## TreeDizzle

357Maximum said:


> Sound familiar?
> 
> http://www.drugfreeworld.org/drugfacts/crackcocaine/why-is-crack-cocaine-so-highly-addictive.html


WOW, Sounds pretty despairing...Have a good remaining season


----------



## 357Maximum

TreeDizzle said:


> WOW, Sounds pretty despairing...Have a good remaining season


Yep, you to. Happy Thanksgiving


----------



## johnhunter247

Uncle Boopoo said:


> I didn't say that. You did.
> 
> I just get a kick out of all the guys with their doom and gloom about what could maybe possibly potentially happen. Someone posts something positive and here comes all the negative Nacy's beating the same old drum of paranoia!
> 
> We're stripping Americans of their freedom and spreading disease like wild fire just so we can beat each other to death with antlers! I guess the pro APR crowd doesn't understand how wrong we really are. Good thing there's plenty of guys on here to tell us!


It seems a majority of the offensive posts come from the non believers. They seem to get worked up pretty easily and always take things to the extreme.


----------



## Waif

TreeDizzle said:


> protecting the majority of 1.5 yrs olds is a starting point to show the masses that giving a buck another year, it will grow exponentially. The same goes for age 2.5 to 3.5. The difficulty is the ability to judge beyond that though. Who's to say that in 5 years, many hunters find that they have killed enough 2.5 year olds that they want to challenge themselves and chase a truly mature animal. This is the journey that I have been on personally. But if killing a 2.5 yr old is a true challenge because most are dead before they reach that age, then why would anyone raise the bar?



The masses don't comprehend that older bucks often have greater potential of mass?
You may be missing something there.
I started out trophy hunting in the seventies.
Whats left as far as greater racks will require more than any A.P.R. will make common and commonality would only decrease their value to me personally as the others were more hard won.
Those bucks were not miss defined as any but the oldest and biggest.
They exist. So what if they are not some one else's passion?
I hunt for my satisfaction.. Today that is not the biggest rack in the area.
Those I have taught are encouraged to choose their own desires in what they will or will not kill within the law.
Does not ruin my hunting what ever they decide constitutes a suitable deer.
My greater concern is that they consider what is available and the impact of their choice,as limited an affect it does or does not have on the local herd and the hows and whys.


----------



## cmueller302

Munster could you please read up on CWD and let me know if CWD can truly be stopped, or really controlled. Stuff lives in soils and plants for ever. But let's oppose APR to avoid CWD really??? That's like saying lets get ride of all cigarettes because that is the only thing that spreads cancer.
If you are concerned about CWD no deer can eat in any affected area ever! Bucks, does, fawns is that likely no! So we live with it.


----------



## poz

S


cmueller302 said:


> Munster could you please read up on CWD and let me know if CWD can truly be stopped, or really controlled. Stuff lives in soils and plants for ever. But let's oppose APR to avoid CWD really??? That's like saying lets get ride of all cigarettes because that is the only thing that spreads cancer.
> If you are concerned about CWD no deer can eat in any affected area ever! Bucks, does, fawns is that likely no! So we live with it.


So You are ll for unlimited baiting again. After all as long as the area is not infected it poses no problem .


----------



## rmw

Munsterlndr said:


> You don't need to be an authority Dean, to be able to look at scientific data and reach obvious conclusions.
> 
> Here is what a couple of very well known Pennsylvania Biologists and whitetail researchers say about dispersal;
> 
> _"In applied ecology, the study of dispersal is fundamental to understanding such
> problems as the spread of diseases, invasions of exotic species, and escape of genetically modified organisms (Bullock et al. 2002a). Dispersal has been suggested as a primary means of spreading disease among populations, and dispersal distance is an important parameter in many mammalian disease spread models (Hansson 1992)."
> 
> "Juvenile dispersal is likely an important mechanism for disease transmission among individuals and populations of mammals (Barlow 1993, Gross and Miller 2001, Byrom 2002), especially in species such as white-tailed deer, where long-distance movements of adults are rare, although some northern populations do exhibit seasonal migratory movements in response to harsh winter weather (Nelson 1998). White-tailed deer are known to be reservoirs for a number of ecologically and economically important diseases, such as bovine tuberculosis, Lyme disease, and chronic wasting disease (CWD), a transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (Miller et al. 2000, Gross and Miller 2001, O’Brien et al. 2002, Piesman 2002). Further, dispersal likely plays an important role in inter-population transmission of these diseases (Gross and Miller 2001)." Diefenbach, Rosenberry, et. al. - _Modeling dispersal distances in male whitetail deer.
> 
> Interesting to note that the previous CWD zone had to be enlarged this year due to the finding of a CWD yearling buck close to the boundary of the previous zone. It's also interesting to note that the only reason that yearling buck was found to be positive was that he was hit by a car. By protecting yearlings with an APR, the potential for the spread of the disease is increased, as has been recognized by Missouri, which removed APR's in the area where CWD was found in free ranging deer, specifically for that reason.
> 
> You figure it out. Yearling dispersal is a recognized mechanism for the transmission of disease and APR protect yearling bucks from being harvested by hunters. As states like Pennsylvania, Illinois, Missouri and West Virginia have found, CWD positive yearling bucks have increased the geographic scope of outbreaks in recent years by being found some distance from previously found postitive clusters.
> 
> But hey, antlers are pretty important so the hell with any disease concerns and bring on those APR's right?


So I guess we need to kill sparkey in the spring when he is kicked out by moma
To avoid a suspected chance of spreading a disease ? Give me a break that's really reaching 
People are starting to see for themselves that APRs work and the people that don't like them are trying anything they can to torpedo it . There will always be diseases that cycle through wild game populations and short of eliminating them we aren't going to do much but try to control it after we find it


----------



## hartman756

:sad:


357Maximum said:


> Unfortunately just like all other SOCIAL RULES/PROGRAMS put into play, the folks that get convinced to simply go along with the "program" because they think they will reap some benefits are the ones that will get hurt the worst in the end. The original ELITE FEW that brought the idea to the forefront will reap huge rewards on the backs of those that were "convinced" to play along however.


This is what I am seeing to a large degree . Guys that were known for shooting large bucks before MARs are now shooting large bucks and telling every one it is all a product of MARs being in place!! And we are already seeing those "good" hunters making mention that they don't want to see the "weekend warrior's " coming to the MARs zone because they will screw up the hunting for the "good" hunters :sad::gaga: Just like the 100,000 or so hunters that quit hunting in Pen after MARs were put in place there.


----------



## Hillsdales Most Wanted

mustang72 said:


> https://www.facebook.com/groups/145631825470177/
> 
> Michigan APRS ..spread the word!


Let em go let em grow!!


----------



## cmueller302

poz said:


> S
> 
> So You are ll for unlimited baiting again. After all as long as the area is not infected it poses no problem .


What is the difference between a large area of bait or a 1 acre food plot? Or a corn field or soy bean field. Look at the major trails going to the field I see 20 to 30 deer come out the same trail and feed all the way out into the field. I set up watering holes and have 20 different deer drinking out of it. I have mineral sites set up with multiple deer using that. I make mock scrapes and have doe and bucks rubbing their glands on the licking branch. So yes I think it's funny that large bait areas are considered to be so devastating to the deer herd!


----------



## twolaketown

Munsterlndr said:


> And CWD continues to spread in PA via yearling dispersal, potentially facilitated by the APR's in place there.


Debbie Downer


----------



## 357Maximum

johnhunter247 said:


> It seems a majority of the offensive posts come from the non believers. They seem to get worked up pretty easily and always take things to the extreme.



The guy that steals your truck in the night does not get worked up. DO YOU?

Politicians do not get worked up when they give your money to someone else. Do You?

The guy sitting at home playing x-box and making babies on your money does not get too worked up about it either. Do you? Should you?


----------



## johnhunter247

357Maximum said:


> The guy that steals your truck in the night does not get worked up. DO YOU?
> 
> Politicians do not get worked up when they give your money to someone else. Do You?
> 
> The guy sitting at home playing x-box and making babies on your money does not get too worked up about it either. Do you? Should you?


The answer is no to all three. Where does getting all worked up get you? It's like trying to empty a hole filled with water and throwing the water up hill...


----------



## DirtySteve

357Maximum said:


> The guy that steals your truck in the night does not get worked up. DO YOU?
> 
> Politicians do not get worked up when they give your money to someone else. Do You?
> 
> The guy sitting at home playing x-box and making babies on your money does not get too worked up about it either. Do you? Should you?



What do you think is being stolen from you? Where is the line in our Constitution that guarantees you the right to shoot a fork horn deer or any deer for that matter? People are trying to make a simple change to the rules. You can still hunt legal deer. Most think there will be a positive change for everyone.......if it doesn't and people arent happy it will change again.


----------



## Waif

DirtySteve said:


> What do you think is being stolen from you? Where is the line in our Constitution that guarantees you the right to shoot a fork horn deer or any deer for that matter? People are trying to make a simple change to the rules. You can still hunt legal deer. Most think there will be a positive change for everyone.......if it doesn't and people arent happy it will change again.


The right to kill a legal deer without others whining about their not liking it is likely covered by the Declaration of Independence under "Life Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".
The constitution does allow them a voice though, however annoying it is so hey keep at it in the hopes that the sissified nanny state infected politics gets socialism imposed so all neighbors have the same choices only.

Kinda like..protests about signs of industrious ambitious people willing to do their own work their own way.
Shocking when they should appease the ones who don't instead.

[Many neighborhoods and some towns have rules and regulations about outdoor clotheslines. To some clotheslines are considered eyesores that endanger property values. While some areas allow home clotheslines if hidden from the street, that doesn’t mean no one will complain about seeing your underwear flapping in the breeze.]


----------



## 357Maximum

DirtySteve said:


> What do you think is being stolen from you? Where is the line in our Constitution that guarantees you the right to shoot a fork horn deer or any deer for that matter? People are trying to make a simple change to the rules. You can still hunt legal deer. Most think there will be a positive change for everyone.......if it doesn't and people arent happy it will change again.



A healthy deer herd based on scientific principles, not emotion/desires and "wants" of the vocal MINORITY. Went dove hunting in Michigan lately?...this is the same brand of cacca whether you can see it or not.


----------



## 357Maximum

johnhunter247 said:


> The answer is no to all three. Where does getting all worked up get you? It's like trying to empty a hole filled with water and throwing the water up hill...



How about the rapist? The murderer? he does not get upset either. It's Thanksgiving so I will STOP my thought right there.


----------



## November Sunrise

PA is a destination state? Out of the many guys I know who hunt out of state each fall I've never met a single one who chose PA as their destination. 

If I were a betting man I'd bet there's a whole more PA hunters going to Ohio to hunt than there are Ohio hunters going to PA


----------



## Tfuscg

November Sunrise said:


> PA is a destination state? Out of the many guys I know who hunt out of state each fall I've never met a single one who chose PA as their destination.
> 
> If I were a betting man I'd bet there's a whole more PA hunters going to Ohio to hunt than there are Ohio hunters going to PA


Yup I'm from pa and the only people I ever saw going to pa were nj and ny people. Deer are a lil bigger and pa has rifle season. Nj is a six day firearm with a shot gun. Pa is a two week rifle season. The pa guys I know that go out of state head to Illinois. They also talk about going to Ohio. Also there are people everywhere. The apr has helped with seeing more deer like this anyhow. But I'm all for people who harvest whatever as long as it is legal. I just have to wonder if


----------



## 357Maximum

jr28schalm said:


> God i wish whole state was 3 on a side...



Lets make it 6 per side, that's like twice as gooder er er right? I'd vote for that. It would be a miserable boat but we would all be there together FOR ONCE.


----------



## 2508speed

fanrwing said:


> Why is there some biological reason it would be better for the herd?


Of course there is. It's called ***** envy.


----------



## johnhunter

JVoutdoors said:


> when you have nothing else, criticize someone's spelling on a blog. nice. notice I didn't formulate complete sentences and the improper use of capitals. or is it capitols. I am sure you will let me know... but I still want to be able to shoot a 4 point once in awhile until I become as intelligent as you and learn the error of my ways in my ignorant backwoods mentality.


When one cannot spell or use proper grammar, people that count instantly notice. It's simply reality and I didn't create it. Just ask any employer who's forced to wade through a pile of resumes and cover letters.


----------



## kracker

I come on here to read about the outdoors, not for a lesson on proper grammar, resumes and cover letters. Start a separate thread on teaching that please.


----------



## cdacker

kd


357Maximum said:


> If you won't answer a question and want to play wikipediawinks here is some reading for you. Even though I know you won't read it. I am pretty sure if you were setting beside that girl and told her she could not shoot that fork, the dilemma would be quite real in her mind. It may have been the only day she had to hunt afterall. Especially when she realized it was because a bored hunter in the next section got his chronies together and made it so.
> 
> http://www.wikihow.com/Spot-a-Sociopath


kids are accustomed to playing within the rules .. from my experience in hunting with kids, if the deer they see isn't legal, they have absolutely no problem not killing it. There is no dilemma in their minds ... unless the adult they are hunting with has a problem with rules.


----------



## DirtySteve

cdacker said:


> kd
> 
> kids are accustomed to playing within the rules .. from my experience in hunting with kids, if the deer they see isn't legal, they have absolutely no problem not killing it. There is no dilemma in their minds ... unless the adult they are hunting with has a problem with rules.



No different than a kid seeing a sub legal spike


----------



## soggybtmboys

fanrwing said:


> Why is there some biological reason it would be better for the herd?


Is there a biological reason we are allowed to bait statewide, barring TB zone? 

Nope, hunters want it, just like they want APR'S.


----------



## soggybtmboys

JVoutdoors said:


> I like reading all the back and forth. Interesting. I hunt in the APR but live 3 hours away. What seems to the pattern to me is the APR big buck only camp are the guys who get to hunt 30 + days a year and drive Cabela's stock up with all their cameras and expensive toys. What I don't like is that my grandson has false expectations on what a 1st year hunter should expect due to all the bragging and social media crap. He is still learning and I want him to appreciate you hunt to eat what you kill, not put it on the wall and talk crap. Nice if you get a big one to eat and mount, but not the primary purpose. We only get to hunt 2-3 days a year not counting maybe a day for the late doe season. Why do you not want us to be able to shoot 1 little 4 point each year on the farm, so we can get at least one if it presents itself during the 4-5 sits I may get? no trail camera time or money. no scouting time or money. if you want to start your own You Tube hunting show move to PA and quit trying to turn deer hunting into a social experiment like the democrats. You don't know what is best for everyone. I have shot a 140 way before APR in the NW, but hunt for the outdoor time and meat. Things are so twisted now... I hope the farmers don't gut shoot your deer all summer like they do on their crop damage permits where I hunt next to...


Uh, I don't know where to begin on your rant. Political affiliation has nothing to do with deer hunting management. Big buck hunters suffer the same time constraints as everyone else, they have jobs too. Disposable income has nothing to do with how serious one is or isn't about their hunting. It's been gone over many times ad nauseum, that after year 1 of implementation, buck harvest and opportunity meets or exceeds the prior non apr years. Farmers gut shooting deer has nothing to do with anything you are wound up about. 

Prior to social media, hunters had brag boards where they would pin a picture, a local buck pole for a social brag, bar stools have been around for centuries and alot of boasting has taken place there. 

Finally, it's parents and grandparents job to mentor a kid and AWEEOME job for taking him. It's also up to you and dad to teach him and make sure he understands things. That also means reasonable expectations. It's also my belief that youths should be exempt from APR regs.


----------



## soggybtmboys

kracker said:


> Back to the original post.....I am at our PA deer camp for the 29th year. I can say without a doubt that we are seeing the biggest bucks we have ever seen in our area the last few years.....that is when we see any deer. Definitely bigger but definitely a lot less deer. Big woods hunting is tough sitting without seeing anything waiting for that one big deer to come by. Took some getting use to but I mind now that I am older..... would not have worked for me when I was younger and needed to see deer to keep interested.


I hear that, my kids like seeing deer and we are in the TB zone. We lost a significant portion of our herd here, and it had everything to do with aggressive doe harvest, and not any buck management. 

We also hunt downstate, where deer numbers are better.


----------



## Wild Thing

Munsterlndr said:


> You don't need to be an authority Dean, to be able to look at scientific data and reach obvious conclusions.
> 
> Here is what a couple of very well known Pennsylvania Biologists and whitetail researchers say about dispersal;
> 
> _"In applied ecology, the study of dispersal is fundamental to understanding such
> problems as the spread of diseases, invasions of exotic species, and escape of genetically modified organisms (Bullock et al. 2002a). Dispersal has been suggested as a primary means of spreading disease among populations, and dispersal distance is an important parameter in many mammalian disease spread models (Hansson 1992)."
> 
> "Juvenile dispersal is likely an important mechanism for disease transmission among individuals and populations of mammals (Barlow 1993, Gross and Miller 2001, Byrom 2002), especially in species such as white-tailed deer, where long-distance movements of adults are rare, although some northern populations do exhibit seasonal migratory movements in response to harsh winter weather (Nelson 1998). White-tailed deer are known to be reservoirs for a number of ecologically and economically important diseases, such as bovine tuberculosis, Lyme disease, and chronic wasting disease (CWD), a transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (Miller et al. 2000, Gross and Miller 2001, O’Brien et al. 2002, Piesman 2002). Further, dispersal likely plays an important role in inter-population transmission of these diseases (Gross and Miller 2001)." Diefenbach, Rosenberry, et. al. - _Modeling dispersal distances in male whitetail deer.
> 
> Interesting to note that the previous CWD zone had to be enlarged this year due to the finding of a CWD yearling buck close to the boundary of the previous zone. It's also interesting to note that the only reason that yearling buck was found to be positive was that he was hit by a car. By protecting yearlings with an APR, the potential for the spread of the disease is increased, as has been recognized by Missouri, which removed APR's in the area where CWD was found in free ranging deer, specifically for that reason.
> 
> You figure it out. Yearling dispersal is a recognized mechanism for the transmission of disease and APR protect yearling bucks from being harvested by hunters. As states like Pennsylvania, Illinois, Missouri and West Virginia have found, CWD positive yearling bucks have increased the geographic scope of outbreaks in recent years by being found some distance from previously found postitive clusters.
> 
> But hey, antlers are pretty important so the hell with any disease concerns and bring on those APR's right?



I can see where this thread is headed and Ive seen enough of the anti APR BS here to know that Im not going to waste my time reading any more if it. With that said, anyone who has even slightly educated himself on the Whitetail deer should know that yearling dispersal is Mother Natures' way of preventing (or severely limiting) inbreeding which would have far more serious consequences than BTB or CWD. 

Just more evidence Munsterlndr, that if you are vehemently opposed to something, one BS excuse is just as good as another. 

My apologies for being so blunt but, ... C'mon Man!!


----------



## Munsterlndr

bioactive said:


> While it is true you make those qualifying statements about baiting, it is also true you are a true proponent of baiting in general, going so far as to equate it with food plotting, and were very outspoken in old discussions about the TB zone and how it was the farmer's responsibility to protect himself about the herd.
> 
> Now you are against APRs everywhere, not just in disease zones, and you are in the business of demonizing it while protecting farmers from the awful specter of a deer herd gone wild, while putting no onus on them to defense themselves as you did against baiting.
> 
> You don't really want me to pull up your many posts on the subject, do you Jim?
> 
> Because I will.
> 
> Got lots of time on my hands in firearms season.


Feel free to post my old posts on the subject, as long as you post them in context, instead of editing them or cutting and pasting them outside of the conversation that they were from as you usually do. If you are just going to selectively quote out of context, don't bother, it's a lame attempt to mislead people. 

As far as being a proponent of baiting, not really the case. I'm a proponent of allowing people to use bait if they choose to, unless it poses a biological threat due to disease concerns. It's about freedom of choice instead of un-necessarily forcing others to adopt your practices, which is what you usually seem to prefer. And yes I equate baiting with food plots because from a disease prevention standpoint there is not credible evidence that one poses any more of a threat then the other. If you want to turn a blind eye to the potential negative impact of artificially feeding deer with plots where disease is present, that's your privilege but I will continue to criticize people who practice those high risk activities while condemning the use of bait.


----------



## fanrwing

soggybtmboys said:


> Is there a biological reason we are allowed to bait statewide, barring TB zone?
> 
> Nope, hunters want it, just like they want APR'S.


Big difference, outside the TB zones baiting appears to cause no harm so if hunters *WANT* to do so they are allowed if you don't want to bait you don't have to. With APRs all hunters must comply, not out of biological necessity but because some other hunter want it.


----------



## Rut-N-Strut

Here is a link to MAPR's in New Jersey.

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/pdf/2010/apr_data_summary10_ppt.pdf


----------



## Munsterlndr

Uncle Boopoo said:


> So out of the 4 deer in MI that tested positive for CWD (Lansing and Kent) how many of them were males?
> 
> How many were found in a zone with any type of APRs?


Out of the 4 deer that have tested positive (4th not yet confirmed by Ames, IA lab) 2 have been males and 2 have been females. Both females and the 2.5 year old male were found in the same area, within a mile of the index case. The 4th deer was a yearling buck, who was found some distance away from the original cluster. Whether he dispersed after becoming infected with the disease or whether the geographic scope of the outbreak is larger then originally thought and more positive deer will be found between the index location and the location of the 4th deer is anybody's guess at this point. 

All were found in a DMU with a type of APR's, the 4 pt. restriction on the second antlered deer tag but not more restrictive APR's that protect a much higher percentage of yearling bucks. Nobody has suggested that APR's cause CWD for that matter.


----------



## codybear

soggybtmboys said:


> I hear that, my kids like seeing deer and we are in the TB zone. We lost a significant portion of our herd here, and it had everything to do with aggressive doe harvest, and not any buck management.
> 
> We also hunt downstate, where deer numbers are better.


I lived in the TB zone since the "Eradication" started back in the mid 90's, it sounded like a war the first year they gave out permits... After 25 years I moved back downstate in the middle of the city and see more deer in my yard here than I ever did up there and my property up there even boardered a huge farm too.. The same thing happened in the UP at our camp in Mackinaw county, they went from no permits to mass permits and after 2 years our buck pole went empty for 3 years straight so we moved farther north into Chippewa county, where I purchased 40 acres and now that went to hell too.. To bad I cant hunt in the city, I could tag out in my backyard down here and save a ton of money.


----------



## bioactive

fanrwing said:


> Why is there some biological reason it would be better for the herd?


Who needs a biological reason?

Not at all necessary for any change in a game law.


----------



## fanrwing

bioactive said:


> Who needs a biological reason?
> 
> Not at all necessary for any change in a game law.


No but my question was to the fellow who wants it to be 4 on a side. If not for biological reasons then why? Why make it more restrictive than it is now?


----------



## soggybtmboys

codybear said:


> I lived in the TB zone since the "Eradication" started back in the mid 90's, it sounded like a war the first year they gave out permits... After 25 years I moved back downstate in the middle of the city and see more deer in my yard here than I ever did up there and my property up there even boardered a huge farm too.. The same thing happened in the UP at our camp in Mackinaw county, they went from no permits to mass permits and after 2 years our buck pole went empty for 3 years straight so we moved farther north into Chippewa county, where I purchased 40 acres and now that went to hell too.. To bad I cant hunt in the city, I could tag out in my backyard down here and save a ton of money.


It's gotten better, but it can still be kinda tough at times.


----------



## 357Maximum

cdacker said:


> kd
> 
> kids are accustomed to playing within the rules .. from my experience in hunting with kids, if the deer they see isn't legal, they have absolutely no problem not killing it. There is no dilemma in their minds ... unless the adult they are hunting with has a problem with rules.



So if I use your circular reasoning. I should not be upset or feel cheated about the gun bills that STOLE my rights in 1934 and 1968 because I was not alive yet?


----------



## soggybtmboys

357Maximum said:


> So if I use your circular reasoning. I should not be upset or feel cheated about the gun bills that STOLE my rights in 1934 and 1968 because I was not alive yet?


What?? Lol, you guys sure do grasp at some straws.


----------



## sniper

GDLUCK said:


> the funny thing about the apr theory is that they don't want the spikes breeding diluting the gene pool with inferior genes. then they show a spike that was let to grow and have a big rack. the genes that could be passed on were the same when it was a spike as they are with a rack.
> 
> what if we applied this to the most important animal, the human race. how many of you would we have to sterilize cause your too skinny, too short or too ugly?
> 
> APR's are greed. they suck. end of story


No where on any of these forums have you read that pro Apr folks cared if a spike bred a doe..It's gonna happen no matter what, it nature...There's strike one...Big racked bucks breed with yearling does late in the year all the time..Which in turn, turns out late dropped fawns..(aka spike bucks)..That's strike 2 with your inferior gene theory..Strike 3 would be the genetic make up of anyone who would try to compare the world of a spiked buck to the human race with zero knowledge of the subject..
Now that what's sucks!


----------



## motdean

I 


hartman756 said:


> The DNR has gone as far as removing even the second tag restriction in the CWD core area already! That in itself should tell everyone that APRs of any sort have no place where CWD has been found as far as the DNR is concerned.


I hadn't heard that. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## Craves

Munsterlndr said:


> You didn't spell out anything, you made a statement that does not accurately reflect my opinion and acted as if it was fact.
> 
> If I supported baiting in a disease zone while opposing APR's for biological reasons, that would by hypocritical. But I don't and my stance on both topics is perfectly consistent. Again, calling someone a hypocrite without being able to substantiate the charge falls to mere name calling.


You did right in this forum that you COULD support APR'S if they met your criteria.

You keep writing about yearling dispersal and the potential it has for the spread of disease if APR'S are in effect, but yet still support baiting. I don't care if it is in, around, near, far, same zip code, different zip code, or whatever to a disease area. By your own theory bucks dispersing have the potential to spread disease. 

I find both of those situations to be hypocritical, you obviously have rationalized your thoughts to justify them.


----------



## Munsterlndr

Craves said:


> You did right in this forum that you COULD support APR'S if they met your criteria.
> 
> You keep writing about yearling dispersal and the potential it has for the spread of disease if APR'S are in effect, but yet still support baiting. I don't care if it is in, around, near, far, same zip code, different zip code, or whatever to a disease area. By your own theory bucks dispersing have the potential to spread disease.
> 
> I find both of those situations to be hypocritical, you obviously have rationalized your thoughts to justify them.


Not sure what the context was of what you think I said about supporting APR's since you have not provided a quote. It could mean a number of different things, such as supporting voluntary APR's, no way to know without a quote and the thread it was said in for context. Even if it's an accurate statement, I don't see how it's hypocritical in any way at all.

Nothing at all hypocritical about opposing baiting in areas where disease is a known factor and supporting it being allowed in areas where disease is not an issue, any more then it's not hypocritical to support APR's in areas where disease is not an issue, while supporting their suspension in areas where disease is a factor, which is the stance that QDMA takes, BTW. 

I don't think you really understand the terms hypocrisy, or rationalization, maybe some time hitting a dictionary would be well spent.


----------



## Craves

Munsterlndr said:


> Not sure what the context was of what you think I said about supporting APR's since you have not provided a quote. It could mean a number of different things, such as supporting voluntary APR's, no way to know without a quote and the thread it was said in for context. Even if it's an accurate statement, I don't see how it's hypocritical in any way at all.
> 
> Nothing at all hypocritical about opposing baiting in areas where disease is a known factor and supporting it being allowed in areas where disease is not an issue, any more then it's not hypocritical to support APR's in areas where disease is not an issue, while supporting their suspension in areas where disease is a factor, which is the stance that QDMA takes, BTW.
> 
> I don't think you really understand the terms hypocrisy, or rationalization, maybe some time hitting a dictionary would be well spent.


Your lack of comprehension is really quite alarming.

Perhaps thinking before typing might be some good advice for you to take.


----------



## Munsterlndr

Craves said:


> Your lack of comprehension is really quite alarming.
> 
> Perhaps thinking before typing might be some good advice for you to take.


You have provided nothing of substance to comprehend, just a bunch of disjointed claims that lack any appearance of being hypocritical. So I guess we can take it that you can't or won't provide any evidence to support your claims of hypocrisy?


----------



## Craves

Munsterlndr said:


> You have provided nothing of substance to comprehend, just a bunch of disjointed claims that lack any appearance of being hypocritical. So I guess we can take it that you can't or won't provide any evidence to support your claims of hypocrisy?


I did. Again, your comprehension skills are lacking.


----------



## Munsterlndr

Craves said:


> I did. Again, your comprehension skills are lacking.


You failed to provide a quote of what I supposedly said that was hypocritical regarding supporting APR's based on my criteria. 

Is QDMA being critical for supporting APR's except in areas where disease has been found? Because that position is identical to the one that you are claiming is hypocritical in regards to my support for baiting in areas where disease has not been found. Again, you keep making claims without providing any supporting evidence that stands up to examination.


----------



## johnhunter247

fanrwing said:


> Actually, I do want to know why a guy would want it to be 4 on a side if there is no biological reason.
> 
> There are several years and thousands of posts on this subject and most of it is BS. If a guy wants some form of APRs just to increase his chances of getting a big buck, I get it I may disagree but he is at least being honest. I understand the frustration of someone who puts in the time and money needed to manage his property only to see his neighbor shoot a buck he let walk.
> 
> I, also, can relate to the guy who only gets 2 or 3 days a year to hunt. I understand the challenges of the guys who because of age or other physical issue can't hike back to the prime areas or wade through the swamps.
> 
> In 43 years of hunting I have taken 2 spikes (I consider the 3 pt a spike) and 3 or 4 fork horns, most of the deer I have shot have had 7 pts. or more. I have let a boatload of small deer walk, sometimes knowing that might be the only one I have a chance at. None of the deer I have taken have in anyway hindered anyone else or in anyway harmed the herd.
> 
> I would fully support an effort to educate hunters on the benefits of letting younger deer walk but I remain opposed to the APR movement we have seen rise up. I don't think the survey process adequately measured the desires of hunters and APRs remove choice from everyone only to make larger deer available.



I don't know why a guy would want to shoot the little deer if there is no biological reason. Lets take a deer out of the herd so we can get 30lbs of meat so we don't starve or because a tag just can't possibly burn a hole in our pocket and I got to get that buck no matter what! Hunting isn't a success unless I kill something! That's all B.S.! It's okay if you limit me for what I am after because your eliminating the pool of bucks prematurely but it's not okay for me to limit you from killing jr... Where is the middle ground? With apr's you can still shoot any legal buck just like you can now(3" antler) you just have to let half of the juniors grow! That's really not much to ask to let 50% of the one year old deer grow. You can shoot still shoot the other 50%. ust can't shoot everything that moves. 50/50 seems fair to me...


----------



## 357Maximum

I do not see many spikes or forks, but then I had basic biology in school, as have all the hunting farmers around me. The smallest buck I seen this year was a 4X2 with an 11-12 inch spread. WIERD right? He is still alive and most likely will still be if he stays where he is at for a few more weeks. I am not the only dorkbuck smoker around here and I love my neighbors for their efforts.


http://www.newsweek.com/how-hunting-driving-evolution-reverse-78295


----------



## Rut-N-Strut

johnhunter247 said:


> Where is the middle ground? With apr's you can still shoot any legal buck just like you can now(3" antler) you just have to let half of the juniors grow! That's really not much to ask to let 50% of the one year old deer grow. You can shoot still shoot the other 50%. just can't shoot everything that moves. 50/50 seems fair to me...




Quite a misleading statement. Let's get it straight.

4pt MAPR's in zone 3 would save 70% of the yearlings. So much for 50-50.... or fairness.


----------



## poz

johnhunter247 said:


> I don't know why a guy would want to shoot the little deer if there is no biological reason. Lets take a deer out of the herd so we can get 30lbs of meat so we don't starve or because a tag just can't possibly burn a hole in our pocket and I got to get that buck no matter what! Hunting isn't a success unless I kill something! *That's all B.S.!* *It's okay if you limit me for what I am after because your eliminating the pool of bucks prematurely but it's not okay for me to limit you from killing jr... *Where is the middle ground? With apr's you can still shoot any legal buck just like you can now(3" antler) you just have to let half of the juniors grow! That's really not much to ask to let 50% of the one year old deer grow. You can shoot still shoot the other 50%. ust can't shoot everything that moves. 50/50 seems fair to me...


What you fail to realize and that you point out in your post is the fact that the real person that needs to get their buck are the MANDATORY APR guys. Your excuse is that a hunter that is shooting a 1.5 yr old is taking that deer away from you. So you won't get your deer and you are mad because you have to get your deer. LOL. Guys who shot older deer in the past, before APRS, had to work for them. You guys want it easier for yourselves. And the only way you can do it is to limit what someone else kills.
I know guys that choose to hunt with homemade long bows and hunt from the ground. It is something they chose to do. And they are not as successful as the average bow hunter using a compound or crossbow. Under your logic, there should be laws passed that make you and everyone else hunt the way they do. Because after all, you are *eliminating the pool of bucks with your modern equipment.* And that is not fair to them because they have different priorities than you do, so you have to change the way you legally hunt, to make it easier for them. You choose to hunt a certain way and for a certain age group or better. But since it's more difficult to do it your way, you want everyone else to change. See how your logic is * all B.S.!*


----------



## fanrwing

johnhunter247 said:


> I don't know why a guy would want to shoot the little deer if there is no biological reason. Lets take a deer out of the herd so we can get 30lbs of meat so we don't starve or because a tag just can't possibly burn a hole in our pocket and I got to get that buck no matter what! Hunting isn't a success unless I kill something! That's all B.S.! It's okay if you limit me for what I am after because your eliminating the pool of bucks prematurely but it's not okay for me to limit you from killing jr... Where is the middle ground? With apr's you can still shoot any legal buck just like you can now(3" antler) you just have to let half of the juniors grow! That's really not much to ask to let 50% of the one year old deer grow. You can shoot still shoot the other 50%. ust can't shoot everything that moves. 50/50 seems fair to me...




Perhaps I didn't express myself clearly or you failed to comprehend. I could care less about the guy who says I need to feed my family or I need to kill a deer because I agree that is BS. I do care about the guy who works his butt off trying to provide for his family and gets 3 maybe 4 days to hunt and every couple of years has a chance to get a deer. I care that his chances are diminished so that someone who has more opportunity can maybe get that same deer next year. I care about guys like one of my best friends who died 2 years ago. At age 79 on the last day he ever hunted he shot a fork horn. It bothers me that folks would consider him selfish for taking that deer. The last thing that crossed my mind as I dragged that deer out of the woods was, "Damn, I wish you had let him go so maybe next year I could shoot him."

Hidden in your post is your desire to kill a large deer, I get it and in that, I wish you luck. I also hope that you learn to enjoy hunting for more than the size of the racks. I wish for all of you to have buddies that you can sit around a fire with smoking a cigar, have a little scotch and think about tomorrows hunt where you can enjoy your time outdoors without worrying about what the guy down the street shoots.

In 43 years I have shot 4 maybe 5 deer you consider too small, I'm sorry if that has ruined your chances.


----------



## DirtySteve

Rut-N-Strut said:


> Quite a misleading statement. Let's get it straight.
> 
> 4pt MAPR's in zone 3 would save 70% of the yearlings. So much for 50-50.... or fairness.


So make it 3 pt Mars in the 3rd zone. It would be a good compromise and a good start. If hunters like or dont the results after 5 yrs then we can talk changes. 

I have said many times I am on the fence about restrictions. Some of the naysayers could be right who knows. I am willing to give them a shot and see for myself though. I don't see how it could hurt much.


----------



## 357Maximum

Poz

I am one of those guys that occasionally hunt with a sharp rock tied to a stick and fired by a bow of my own making from a hickory tree. I could not agree more with you. "TROPHY" is a whole lot more inclusive of a word when I have the time to carry that equipment. 


Homemade 62lb mollegebet style bow, self knapped chert head, and an arrow made from multiflora rose. One of the best trophies of my life. If it had been a spike or a 12 point the "success" would not have been any sweeter. 









Pushing for MANDATORY APR=greed no matter how anyone tries to get around it. I am sure that's why most of them cannot/willnot give a straight answer. They do not like the battle of truth that their soul and desires are wrestling with so they dance around the issue and make fun of your spelling/grammar.


----------



## Munsterlndr

DirtySteve said:


> So make it 3 pt Mars in the 3rd zone. It would be a good compromise and a good start. If hunters like or dont the results after 5 yrs then we can talk changes.
> 
> I have said many times I am on the fence about restrictions. Some of the naysayers could be right who knows. I am willing to give them a shot and see for myself though. I don't see how it could hurt much.


Such a restriction would not meet the minimum required protection rate for a stakeholder APR initiative and as such would not be allowed to proceed. Of course the NRC can do anything they want but I highly doubt they would ignore the established process and implement a non-conforming APR unless there was some compelling reason to do so. Much more likely that they would consider a HC APR then one that did not meet the minimum for the zone it was being considered for.


----------



## bioactive

DirtySteve said:


> So make it 3 pt Mars in the 3rd zone. It would be a good compromise and a good start. If hunters like or dont the results after 5 yrs then we can talk changes.
> 
> I have said many times I am on the fence about restrictions. Some of the naysayers could be right who knows. I am willing to give them a shot and see for myself though. I don't see how it could hurt much.



It would not protect enough young bucks to be effective in in the southern lower peninsula. For very sound reasons, the DNR requires that an APR protect at least 50% of yearling bucks, as Munster mentioned.


----------



## DirtySteve

Munsterlndr said:


> Such a restriction would not meet the minimum required protection rate for a stakeholder APR initiative and as such would not be allowed to proceed. Of course the NRC can do anything they want but I highly doubt they would ignore the established process and implement a non-conforming APR unless there was some compelling reason to do so. Much more likely that they would consider a HC APR then one that did not meet the minimum for the zone it was being considered for.



Wasn't it you that was just telling me the NRC can be swayed into anything by small special interst groups without much reasoning?


----------



## Rut-N-Strut

johnhunter247 said:


> I don't know why a guy would want to shoot the little deer if there is no biological reason. Lets take a deer out of the herd so we can get 30lbs of meat so we don't starve or because a tag just can't possibly burn a hole in our pocket and I got to get that buck no matter what! Hunting isn't a success unless I kill something! That's all B.S.! It's okay if you limit me for what I am after because your eliminating the pool of bucks prematurely but it's not okay for me to limit you from killing jr...


That's because you can only see one side. Your side.

You really see it as someone is limiting you?...LOL.

No one is limiting you. You can hunt for whatever size buck you want.

You make it sound as if someone owes you a buck of a lifetime..... every time.


----------



## 357Maximum

DirtySteve said:


> Wasn't it you that was just telling me the NRC can be swayed into anything by small special interst groups without much reasoning?



I am hoping that little bit of legislation passed in 2014 put and end to that myself, but I will be realistic about the fact. It should at least make it harder...I hope. A 3 pt APR would not accomplish much in MOST of the SLP. I very rarely see one it would protect anyway. It would take a 5pt apr down here to sway things much and then you would be waaaaaaaaaaaay overboard.


----------



## Rut-N-Strut

Under MAPR's. Are the MAPR supporters going to be targeting 2.5 year old bucks?


----------



## brushbuster

Rut-N-Strut said:


> Under MAPR's. Are the MAPR supporters going to be targeting 2.5 year old bucks?


Maybe. I have an 8 point rule but I don't shoot every 8 point I see. If I like the looks of an 8 point and I decide to shoot it and it turns out to be 2.5 then yes. Now if we had a proposal out there for 3.5 yr old deer I would no longer Have the 8 point rule, Just like on my lease in Hillsdale . With the rules on that property I get to shoot one buck at 3.5 or better.


----------



## FREEPOP

mbrewer said:


> If I'm not mistaken, you've referenced sacrificing your opportunity for others. This is where your efforts would be best served.
> 
> You're asking others to sacrifice by passing up a deer that meet their own personal standard, for the common good. That's fine, nothing wrong with believing that. But have you? Do you pass up deer that meet your personal standard, for the common good?
> 
> This whole, I pass up lots of bucks (I'm not interested in taking) doesn't mean much to someone who is being asked to sacrifice under penalty of law. Unless I've confused you with someone else, you *can* demonstrate your sacrifice. If you can, you should. You'll win more converts that way than you ever could by winning an argument.


I believe this to be the crux of the biscuit.

I see many Pro-APR supporters complaining about people that "gotta get my buck". What about the group that is only fortunate to get a yearling buck every 3-5 five years? I know several such individuals and am fortunate enough to be friends with them. They don't bother with worrying about what other people do with their recreational activities.


----------



## DirtySteve

FREEPOP said:


> I believe this to be the crux of the biscuit.
> 
> I see many Pro-APR supporters complaining about people that "gotta get my buck". What about the group that is only fortunate to get a yearling buck every 3-5 five years? I know several such individuals and am fortunate enough to be friends with them. They don't bother with worrying about what other people do with their recreational activities.


In theory they would get a 2.5 yr old or better buck every 3-5yrs. The idea is the success rates shouldn't change. I am not sure if this would be true or not but I am willing to give it a shot. If it doesn't work out and hunting is worse we change it back after the trial period.


----------



## Rut-N-Strut

brushbuster said:


> Maybe. I have an 8 point rule but I don't shoot every 8 point I see. If I like the looks of an 8 point and I decide to shoot it and it turns out to be 2.5 then yes. Now if we had a proposal out there for 3.5 yr old deer I would no longer Have the 8 point rule, Just like on my lease in Hillsdale . With the rules on that property I get to shoot one buck at 3.5 or better.


Are you telling me that after a buck you shot this season that you would now target a 2.5 year old?
Somehow I doubt that. Besides. You could still do that without MAPR's. 

Plus, you shot the calibre of buck you wish to target without the aid of MAPR's

Come on. It really isn't about the 2,5 year olds is it?. :mischeif:

.


----------



## brushbuster

Rut-N-Strut said:


> Are you telling me that after a buck you shot this season that you would now target a 2.5 year old?
> Somehow I doubt that. Besides. You could still do that without MAPR's.
> 
> Plus, you shot the calibre of buck you wish to target without the aid of MAPR's
> 
> Come on. It really isn't about the 2,5 year olds is it?. :mischeif:
> 
> .


This is where you have always been a bit confused with me. I support APRS because I strongly believe that they will improve hunting opportunity for all especially those of us who hunt public lands. I do love hunting trophies but I also love hunting deer. So yes I will shoot a 2.5 yr old deer. And you are right I don't need APRs to kill a big deer.


----------



## FREEPOP

DirtySteve said:


> In theory they would get a 2.5 yr old or better buck every 3-5yrs. The idea is the success rates shouldn't change. I am not sure if this would be true or not but I am willing to give it a shot. If it doesn't work out and hunting is worse we change it back after the trial period.


In theory, people wouldn't worry about what others' do in their recreational activities.


----------



## jr28schalm

i have never seen so many people around my property in nw12......What group can i make donations to that will get aprs threw out lower part of the state?


----------



## TreeDizzle

johnhunter247 said:


> Your right they don't come easy. They don't come easy anywhere. You can see lots of good bucks easier elsewhere but getting them is hard no matter where they are. I just can't understand how there could possibly one hunter in Michigan or anywhere for that matter that doesn't want better quality of hunting. That doesn't get excited about seeing a mature whitetail. Who goes to sleep at night on 09/30 or 11/14 dreaming about jr buck? Every once in a while the sun shines on a dogs ass but most of the time deer hunting in Michigan compared to other destinations west and south of here is like making minimum wage. Were all flipping fries for a living and some want to better themselves while others are just happy flipping fries. I'm thinking were starting to get to the point where the majority want to better themselves and the rest want to keep throwing water up hill trying to empty a puddle...


This is sad but true. Unfortunately there are a lot of people that have learned to live with minimum wage(or unemployment). From what I can tell at my camp in the NW13 and the many neighbors surrounding us on both public and private, people have tasted prosperity and it tastes good wrapped in bacon! Since I was 13-14 years old, it only took about 2-3 years to realize that a spike or fork horn wasn't much of a challenge. I am 100% for the youth hunts/mentor tags providing the exception for youths to harvest any buck. But for a middle aged man who has been hunting for 15+ years and has trouble killing a 1.5 old buck every 4-5 years, I would suggest

A) Reading a book and studying how to sharpen your hunting skills. Challenge yourself
B) Finding some new hunting land, Michigan is full of Public land
C) Scouting - not driving to the same ground blind on Nov 14th, putting a few more sticks up for concealment, and hope for the best on Nov. 15th.

This my fellow hunters is the Insanity that we have as our lowest common denominator.


----------



## FREEPOP

TreeDizzle said:


> This is sad but true. Unfortunately there are a lot of people that have learned to live with minimum wage(or unemployment). From what I can tell at my camp in the NW13 and the many neighbors surrounding us on both public and private, people have tasted prosperity and it tastes good wrapped in bacon! Since I was 13-14 years old, it only took about 2-3 years to realize that a spike or fork horn wasn't much of a challenge. I am 100% for the youth hunts/mentor tags providing the exception for youths to harvest any buck. But for a middle aged man who has been hunting for 15+ years and has trouble killing a 1.5 old buck every 4-5 years, I would suggest
> 
> A) Reading a book and studying how to sharpen your hunting skills. Challenge yourself
> B) Finding some new hunting land, Michigan is full of Public land
> C) Scouting - not driving to the same ground blind on Nov 14th, putting a few more sticks up for concealment, and hope for the best on Nov. 15th.
> 
> This my fellow hunters is the Insanity that we have as our lowest common denominator.


So this should also be true of golf, bowling, softball, volleyball, hockey, etc. or any other recreational sport one pursues?

I don't understand the need to measure up to someone else's expectations with our recreational activities.


----------



## TreeDizzle

FREEPOP said:


> So this should also be true of golf, bowling, softball, volleyball, hockey, etc. or any other recreational sport one pursues?
> 
> I don't understand the need to measure up to someone else's expectations with our recreational activities.


The most similar recreational sport that I can think of is Fishing. For Panfish there isn't a size limit, so lets compare panfish to small game for this instance. For larger game fish, you have size restrictions. Bass - 14", Pike - 24", etc. This is very similar to Big Game animals.

I don't see it as measuring, its just managing


----------



## FREEPOP

TreeDizzle said:


> The most similar recreational sport that I can think of is Fishing. For Panfish there isn't a size limit, so lets compare panfish to small game for this instance. For larger game fish, you have size restrictions. Bass - 14", Pike - 24", etc. This is very similar to Big Game animals.
> 
> I don't see it as measuring, its just managing


Here we go with the fishing comparison again. Fishing limits have a biological reason.......APRs don't have that reason.


----------



## TreeDizzle

FREEPOP said:


> Here we go with the fishing comparison again. Fishing limits have a biological reason.......APRs don't have that reason.


How are you able to prove that?


----------



## Craves

Rut-N-Strut said:


> Under MAPR's. Are the MAPR supporters going to be targeting 2.5 year old bucks?


Absolutely.


----------



## swampbuck

FREEPOP said:


> So this should also be true of golf, bowling, softball, volleyball, hockey, etc. or any other recreational sport one pursues?
> 
> I don't understand the need to measure up to someone else's expectations with our recreational activities.


Yup....a trophy for everyone!

The Dnr should give us participation ribbons when we buy a license, so mom can pin them to our coat.


----------



## TreeDizzle

swampbuck said:


> Yup....a trophy for everyone!
> 
> The Dnr should give us participation ribbons when we buy a license, so mom can pin them to our coat.


Opportunities for everyone, even the guy who sights in his rifle on Nov 14th and stumbles out to his blind on Nov 15th for the first time. If you aren't for it, I am pretty sure there are 3 times as many counties without APR's. Not to mention the antlerless tags available. 

The fact is, most people that hunt in the NW13 seem to be extremely happy. What drives me nuts is when people try to blame their poor hunting on other people or APR's. Get over yourself and accept that you have the ability to learn and do something different in the future. We have an incredible freedom in Michigan when it comes to hunting. Don't limit yourself to blaming your woes on others.


----------



## FREEPOP

TreeDizzle said:


> We have an incredible freedom in Michigan when it comes to hunting.


Sounds like a good thing to me.


----------



## mustang72

TreeDizzle said:


> Opportunities for everyone, even the guy who sights in his rifle on Nov 14th and stumbles out to his blind on Nov 15th for the first time. If you aren't for it, I am pretty sure there are 3 times as many counties without APR's. Not to mention the antlerless tags available.
> 
> The fact is, most people that hunt in the NW13 seem to be extremely happy. What drives me nuts is when people try to blame their poor hunting on other people or APR's. Get over yourself and accept that you have the ability to learn and do something different in the future. We have an incredible freedom in Michigan when it comes to hunting. Don't limit yourself to blaming your woes on others.



Your beating your head against a wall kid... you sound like a guy with common sense and a bright future hunting in this great state...do yourself a favor and spread the word to people who are at least willing to look at both sides...... change is happening and your part of it!


----------



## bioactive

FREEPOP said:


> Here we go with the fishing comparison again. Fishing limits have a biological reason.......APRs don't have that reason.


Nonsense. There is no biological reason for a 14 inch limit on bass for example. In my lifetime there has been a 12 inch and 10 inch limit in MI. Minnesota has no limit on bass yet they have lots of lakes filled with bass.

This is something Ranger Ray fabricated on this forum based on some literature that has nothing whatsoever to do with support for fish length restrictions.

We have a 14 inch limit on bass so fishing can be more enjoyable and there are more larger fish available for anglers.

If you want to discuss slot limits, when applied they usually include a justification related to protecting breeding populations, but you will not find any such justifications for minimum length limits.


----------



## Rut-N-Strut

Craves said:


> Absolutely.


That's great. But..... No one needs MAPR's to do that now.

One man's 2.5 is another man's 1.5.


----------



## mbrewer

TreeDizzle said:


> This is sad but true. Unfortunately there are a lot of people that have learned to live with minimum wage(or unemployment). From what I can tell at my camp in the NW13 and the many neighbors surrounding us on both public and private, people have tasted prosperity and it tastes good wrapped in bacon! Since I was 13-14 years old, it only took about 2-3 years to realize that a spike or fork horn wasn't much of a challenge. I am 100% for the youth hunts/mentor tags providing the exception for youths to harvest any buck. But for a middle aged man who has been hunting for 15+ years and has trouble killing a 1.5 old buck every 4-5 years, I would suggest
> 
> A) Reading a book and studying how to sharpen your hunting skills. Challenge yourself
> B) Finding some new hunting land, Michigan is full of Public land
> C) Scouting - not driving to the same ground blind on Nov 14th, putting a few more sticks up for concealment, and hope for the best on Nov. 15th.
> 
> This my fellow hunters is the Insanity that we have as our lowest common denominator.


So what is the lowest common denominator you reference?


----------



## mbrewer

TreeDizzle said:


> Opportunities for everyone, even the guy who sights in his rifle on Nov 14th and stumbles out to his blind on Nov 15th for the first time. If you aren't for it, I am pretty sure there are 3 times as many counties without APR's. Not to mention the antlerless tags available.
> 
> The fact is, most people that hunt in the NW13 seem to be extremely happy. What drives me nuts is when people try to blame their poor hunting on other people or APR's. Get over yourself and accept that you have the ability to learn and do something different in the future. We have an incredible freedom in Michigan when it comes to hunting. Don't limit yourself to blaming your woes on others.


Surely someone will have beat me to this so I apologize in advance for piling on. But...what other people do, and get blamed for is the genesis of the M and the R in MARPs.


----------



## johnhunter247

FREEPOP said:


> So this should also be true of golf, bowling, softball, volleyball, hockey, etc. or any other recreational sport one pursues?
> 
> I don't understand the need to measure up to someone else's expectations with our recreational activities.


I guess somewhere along the line someone's expectation was three inches of antler on one side. You follow that don't you?


----------



## mbrewer

357Maximum said:


> Food for thought:
> What about the man/woman that has just started to hunt at age 35 or 45 or 55 because a friend got them into it? Should the law keep him/her from having the same benefit of
> "growing/evolving" into the same conclusion you have already came to because he/she got a late start and did not happen to be born into it? I have helped several people that age to get into deer hunting it does happen. Would you take their learning/experience curve away from them because they are "old". I wouldn't be able to sleep if I stole that wonder from them so I could pad my wall with another 2.5 yr old buck, could you? Not everyone has the same experience and not everyone was as fortunate as some of us to be born into it. Should they be excluded for that late start?


Raising the bar doesn't eliminate the learning curve, it increases it. 

A quality mentor is a giant leg up for any newcomer. If that describes you, congratulations and keep up the good work.


----------



## poz

What cracks me up is that many on here get referred to as the anti -aprs guys when pretty much everyone of those guys practices VOLUNTARY APRS. But in order for the MANDATORY APR guys to feel good they have put the word ANTI in to describe us.


----------



## FREEPOP

johnhunter247 said:


> I guess somewhere along the line someone's expectation was three inches of antler on one side. You follow that don't you?


That is not an antler point restriction, it is an identifying feature. Antlered deer vs. antlerless

Old arguments, that still aren't valid.


----------



## dc3shcmanke

poz said:


> What cracks me up is that many on here get referred to as the anti -aprs guys when pretty much everyone of those guys practices VOLUNTARY APRS. But in order for the MANDATORY APR guys to feel good they have put the word ANTI in to describe us.


This cracks me up too, i use BBH (Baby Buck Hunter) to describe you:cheeky-sm


----------



## dc3shcmanke

mustang72 said:


> Your beating your head against a wall kid... you sound like a guy with common sense and a bright future hunting in this great state...do yourself a favor and spread the word to people who are at least willing to look at both sides...... change is happening and your part of it!


Change is coming! 7,159 members


----------



## Waif

dc3shcmanke said:


> Change is coming! 7,159 members


I hope they manage deer better than they do hunters!


----------



## poz

dc3shcmanke said:


> This cracks me up too, i use BBH (Baby Buck Hunter) to describe you:cheeky-sm


See you prove my point, thank you. The difference between you and iI is the fact that I don't need to be anti anything when it comes to hunting to be able to kill a 2.5 or older buck. You're the one who has to limit what others shoot. Lol.


----------



## jr28schalm

the baby bucks are harder to hit thats why you usualy need a bait pile 10 feet from the truck


----------



## bucko12pt

poz said:


> What cracks me up is that many on here get referred to as the anti -aprs guys when pretty much everyone of those guys practices VOLUNTARY APRS. But in order for the MANDATORY APR guys to feel good they have put the word ANTI in to describe us.


You mean like Swampy shooting a yearling spike horn last year and Munster promoting killing button bucks??
Most of the guys you're talking about have an antler addiction and can't help themselves when a yearling walks in front of them. 

Your post is BS and anyone that reads these threads regularly knows it.


----------



## brushbuster

Whew! this thread got off topic lol How bout that Pennsylvania eh?


----------



## brushbuster

I found this interesting in the read that Soggy provided for us.

And it’s not just a rise in the 2.5-year-old bucks, either.

“If these bucks survive several years to reach ages of 4.5 to 6.5-years-old, that’s their peak,” Conway said. “Bucks reaching that age range is getting to be more common than it was in the past.”


----------



## poz

bucko12pt said:


> You mean like Swampy shooting a yearling spike horn last year and Munster promoting killing button bucks??
> Most of the guys you're talking about have an antler addiction and can't help themselves when a yearling walks in front of them.
> 
> Your post is BS and anyone that reads these threads regularly knows it.


And everyone promoting MAPRS have admitted to shooting 1.5 YR OLDS before.


----------



## poz

TE="poz, post: 5715144, member: 10572"]And everyone promoting MAPRS have admitted to shooting 1.5 YR OLDS before.[/QUOTE]
Don't you think there were hunters back then that wished you passed them. But they had respect for a hunter shooting a legal deer. You guys don't.


----------



## Waif

brushbuster said:


> Whew! this thread got off topic lol How bout that Pennsylvania eh?


We'll have to follow.
It's the opener of firearm there regardless!

http://www.publicopiniononline.com/story/news/local/2015/11/27/pa-deer-hunt-starts-monday/76265052/


----------



## brushbuster

There is no doubt APRs are working in Pennsylvania, Leelanau, NW12. Age matters lol. Look at the bucks coming out of the NLP non APR zones, definately age is the primary contributor. Sure, bucks are taken in these zones without APRs for the time being , but will it last in the Non APR regions? One thing for sure bucks will keep on getting older in the NW12 consistently, can that be said for the non APR zones. I think not. I get it why some of you are against APRs. But I would like to see you guys at least admit that APRs do exactly what they are intended to do. And that is advance the buck age structure.


----------



## Rut-N-Strut

What are the Pre MAPR buck harvest numbers compared to the Post MAPR buck harvest numbers? How much did Post MAPR buck harvest go down? 

We know it had to, because PA was in deer herd reduction mode.


----------



## soggybtmboys

brushbuster said:


> I found this interesting in the read that Soggy provided for us.
> 
> And it’s not just a rise in the 2.5-year-old bucks, either.
> 
> “If these bucks survive several years to reach ages of 4.5 to 6.5-years-old, that’s their peak,” Conway said. “Bucks reaching that age range is getting to be more common than it was in the past.”


That's a very interesting part of the article I found as well. It seems in most anything I have ever read, or seen firsthand, it's the 1.5 yr old hurdle to get over is the biggest for them.


----------



## GDLUCK

hypox said:


> Wouldn't people want to harvest 2-1/2 or 3-1/2 year old bucks for all the additional meat?
> 
> How many pounds of meat do you get off one of those yearling bucks anyway?


NOPE! I'm in my heart attack years and sit behind a desk too many hours each day. I don't need to drag anymore weight than the 120lb 1.5 year olds and i don't want to screw up my friends hunt by them helping me drag.

Those 1.5 year old deer fill my freezer right about perfect and i wouldnt want the meat wasted.


----------



## hypox

Waif said:


> About forty pounds more than off the buck not killed.
> I weigh 125 and have one leg. Yes I've dealt with older deer that weigh more than myself.
> Some serious work when outweighed though.
> Deer still gets tracked,recovered tagged,dressed, loaded in truck ,hung and skinned before butchering it.
> Hard to consider them less in value than any other life taken to attempt to imitate a latent self sufficiency in a primal corner of my mind.
> Size of the work does not vary greatly with body mass of a deer and the satisfaction of makin do still remains.
> My small freezer has no more objection to size than I with smaller deer being compatible as well as any.
> A bounty year means more jerky .
> You want to hunt older bucks do it.
> They exist somewhere as they always have.
> When you hunt with many other people on the same parcel they are not always as visible is all.
> If you are on managed private you are way ahead of the game.
> If people want to harvest 2 1/2 or 3 1/2 for the additional meat,and no others then apparently that is their choice..
> Nothing wrong with a choice unless it affects the herd beyond the subtraction of that choice.
> Social pacification is nothing new but pressure to enact restrictions of choices on age/antlers not effecting the herd can overlook by locale what a herd really needs.
> Focus on overpopulated areas first with greater regulation of age of bucks , as there is where affordability of such luxury can be sustained longer than in a herd that needs growing.
> Not permanently, if monitoring of herds response is not kept well studied.
> 
> Voluntary restrictions are a faster response than legal ones.
> Most effective when goals and herd are understood and compatible.
> 
> Not much bigger annoyance than calling for a broad spectrum solution when it's wide application covers unknown, or worse, ignored variables.


I got about 75 pounds of meat off my deer.

The deer was heavier than me after field dressing it. (I do have 2 legs though, I have no idea how you do all that with one leg!)

I hunt private property, but share it with a lot of other hunters. I bet the numbers are similar to public land (sometimes I wonder if it's worse). This year opening day (gun season) the neighbors (on just one side) shot 5 yearling bucks so it's hardly managed land.

I do target mature (If you call 3-1/2 YO mature) bucks. I average around one buck a year. Sometimes I don't get one, sometimes I get two....bow only.

APR's wouldn't affect me at all. They wouldn't affect the type of deer I try to harvest, and they wouldn't affect the number of deer I shoot. I do think however that a good number of people would benefit from a higher possibility of getting more meat and PROBABLY consider their experiences more fun if they saw more bucks. I don't know a hunter alive that doesn't like to see deer while hunting and doesn't like seeing bucks.


----------



## 357Maximum

hypox said:


> I got about 75 pounds of meat off my deer.
> 
> The deer was heavier than me after field dressing it. (I do have 2 legs though, I have no idea how you do all that with one leg!)
> 
> I hunt private property, but share it with a lot of other hunters. I bet the numbers are similar to public land (sometimes I wonder if it's worse). This year opening day (gun season) the neighbors (on just one side) shot 5 yearling bucks so it's hardly managed land.
> 
> I do target mature (If you call 3-1/2 YO mature) bucks. I average around one buck a year. Sometimes I don't get one, sometimes I get two....bow only.
> 
> APR's wouldn't affect me at all. They wouldn't affect the type of deer I try to harvest, and they wouldn't affect the number of deer I shoot. I do think however that a good number of people would benefit from a higher possibility of getting more meat and PROBABLY consider their experiences more fun if they saw more bucks. I don't know a hunter alive that doesn't like to see deer while hunting and doesn't like seeing bucks.



How is it going to pan out in time however? It is a scientifically unsound practice when practiced by all. I posted a high grading link in #304, did you read it? 

Mandatory aprs will not change my hunting much either. I pretty much follow them to the letter 99% of the time already anyway. The mandatory part will hurt people I know in a bad way and in time it will bite all of us in the rear. Several billion years of evolution says it is so. Luckily I will have enough youth hunters available to keep the potential scrub population in check for the next 14 years or so right here to delay them effects if they ever do add an M to the version of APR I already impose on myself and myself only.


----------



## hypox

GDLUCK said:


> NOPE! I'm in my heart attack years and sit behind a desk too many hours each day. I don't need to drag anymore weight than the 120lb 1.5 year olds and i don't want to screw up my friends hunt by them helping me drag.
> 
> Those 1.5 year old deer fill my freezer right about perfect and i wouldnt want the meat wasted.


Sounds like venison isn't for you, too much cholesterol.


----------



## 357Maximum

Here's the link from #304 to make it easier to find. I think the author can be trusted by most of the MAPR crowd and Non MAPR crowd alike. He seems like a man that counts. 

http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/f...ng-everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know.223552/


----------



## Ranger Ray

bioactive said:


> Nonsense. There is no biological reason for a 14 inch limit on bass for example. In my lifetime there has been a 12 inch and 10 inch limit in MI. Minnesota has no limit on bass yet they have lots of lakes filled with bass.
> 
> This is something Ranger Ray fabricated on this forum based on some literature that has nothing whatsoever to do with support for fish length restrictions.
> 
> We have a 14 inch limit on bass so fishing can be more enjoyable and there are more larger fish available for anglers.
> 
> If you want to discuss slot limits, when applied they usually include a justification related to protecting breeding populations, but you will not find any such justifications for minimum length limits.


So your argument is that because the size limit of bass has changed two times in your lifetime and the fact Minnesota in some places has no bass limit, therefore there is no scientific reason for a 14" limit? Please. MAPR's compared to fish minimum size limits is like comparing the reason of having Bob Bechtel to Kimberly Guilfoyle on the Five. The dynamic reasoning of employing each is totally different. But such is the desperate reach the MAPR's guys go to justify their social need for big antlers. Oh, and this does not mean there are some totally BS trophy limits that have been pushed by special interests like TU and others that have been passed. Bass limits aren't one of them.

There is a great scientific research study on the reasoning of going from 10" to 12" limit on bass. It is about increasing biomass because of pressure the DNR thought was happening, and was only going to increase. Not to make trophy fish. However, don't think for a moment increasing numbers, does not many times increase size. Here again it's the pursued to pursuer ratio. There is also scientific studies talking of the 14" limit existing for increase in spawning cycles to increase biomass.

What was Pennsylvania's reason for implementing MAPR's? To decrease the herd, a scientific reason. What's the scientific reason for increasing the bass minimum size? To increase the biomass. Two totally different dynamics.

Wisconsin is now looking into going back to a 12" limit because they are finding the increased biomass is causing issues with bass and other species biologically. But hey according to Bio, limits have no scientific reasoning. So goes the reasoning of our resident arm chair wildlife biologists.

Advancing age of bucks one year has as much bearing scientifically to the deer herd, as advancing the buck age structure to produce bigger deer crap.

As Bio likes to bring up Minnesota, I will leave you with a definition from the professionals:

From Minnesota DNR: Management Myths Dispelled (Love The Tittle)

Minimum size limit:
This limit requires that all fish below a set length must be released. For example, the statewide minimum size limit for muskellunge is 40 inches, meaning that you may not keep a muskie less than 40 inches long.

*Use: this protects slow-maturing fish such as muskies, steelhead, and lake sturgeon until they can spawn at least once.*

Wow, a scientific reason for minimum size. Who'd of thought.



Bio said:


> If you want to discuss slot limits, when applied they usually include a justification related to protecting breeding populations, but you will not find any such justifications for minimum length limits.but you will not find any such justifications for minimum length limits.


Really?

"In terms of numbers, an increase in the minimum size limit to 12 inches would reduce the catch considerably, at all projected rates of exploitation, but this is judged a reasonable sacrifice to insure a substantial biomass and to maintain or perhaps increase the yield in pounds. I am assuming there has been and will continue to be an increase in rate of exploitation."

Not only was that a justification on a size limit to protect a breeding population from over exploitation, it was actually a scientific justification for Michigan going to a 12" limit.


----------



## Waif

hypox said:


> I got about 75 pounds of meat off my deer.
> 
> The deer was heavier than me after field dressing it. (I do have 2 legs though, I have no idea how you do all that with one leg!)
> 
> I hunt private property, but share it with a lot of other hunters. I bet the numbers are similar to public land (sometimes I wonder if it's worse). This year opening day (gun season) the neighbors (on just one side) shot 5 yearling bucks so it's hardly managed land.
> 
> I do target mature (If you call 3-1/2 YO mature) bucks. I average around one buck a year. Sometimes I don't get one, sometimes I get two....bow only.
> 
> APR's wouldn't affect me at all. They wouldn't affect the type of deer I try to harvest, and they wouldn't affect the number of deer I shoot. I do think however that a good number of people would benefit from a higher possibility of getting more meat and PROBABLY consider their experiences more fun if they saw more bucks. I don't know a hunter alive that doesn't like to see deer while hunting and doesn't like seeing bucks.


I understand the perspective of a 3 1/2 year old weighed against being mature.
Can't redo a dead deer but the last one had outstanding potential I halted.
He confirmed the increase in weight over a younger one no doubt as normal, and was targeted a year earlier at 2 1/2 for being well antlered.
Another year or two the possibility was there for a trophy,(depending on ones definition) but one that would allow promoting the states potential despite his limited range.

Congrats on your buck hunting.
Your locating a biggun a year is about a few times my average over the past forty plus.
A.P.R.'s would in theory allow you more potential targets ,depending on variables.


----------



## poz

bucko12pt said:


> I didn't post the lie, you did.


I never mentioned any names, you are the one mentioning names. so how did i lie. but keep trying lol.


----------



## hypox

357Maximum said:


> Here's the link from #304 to make it easier to find. I think the author can be trusted by most of the MAPR crowd and Non MAPR crowd alike. He seems like a man that counts.
> 
> http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/f...ng-everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know.223552/


I didn't read the entire 10 pages, but I doubt it would have changes my thoughts much.

I just don't see man being able to purposefully change characteristics of wild animals (in the wild) over any observable amount of time. When man purposefully tries to fiddle with mother nature, mother nature always throws a curve ball. 

I spend a lot (I mean a lot) of time identifying each and every buck on a couple different properties. I spend all year running cameras. Over about 10 years of camera information, I've been able to trace a lot of deer from 1-1/2 years old to 3-1/2+ and one to 6-1/2 . I can tell you from my observations, I've seen 1-1/2 year old 6 points go to 2-1/2 year old 6 points and I've seen 1-1/2 year old spikes go to 2-1/2 year old 10 points. I don't see how anyone would be able to tell what a deer will be at 1-1/2 years old. On top of that, antlers always get larger one way or another, mass, length, etc. in the ranges of ages we are talking about.

And, at the end of the day, I don't see how many points a deer has to be anything significant to his overall health. I would shoot a 3-1/2 year old six point over a 2-1/2 year old 10 point in a heartbeat.


----------



## 2508speed

GDLUCK said:


> NOPE! I'm in my heart attack years and sit behind a desk too many hours each day. I don't need to drag anymore weight than the 120lb 1.5 year olds and i don't want to screw up my friends hunt by them helping me drag.
> 
> Those 1.5 year old deer fill my freezer right about perfect and i wouldnt want the meat wasted.


I like your attitude. I'm getting up there too! Shoot what you want if it's legal.We'll worry about it later when we don't see dead deer along the highway. Eliminating the deer herd would be akin to killing all the ants. Can't be done.


----------



## johnhunter

poz said:


> And everyone promoting MAPRS have admitted to shooting 1.5 YR OLDS before.


Yeah, but "before" for those guys means 15-20+ years ago, not last week.


----------



## Waif

hypox said:


> Sounds like venison isn't for you, too much cholesterol.


C


hypox said:


> I didn't read the entire 10 pages, but I doubt it would have changes my thoughts much.
> 
> I just don't see man being able to purposefully change characteristics of wild animals (in the wild) over any observable amount of time. When man purposefully tries to fiddle with mother nature, mother nature always throws a curve ball.
> 
> I spend a lot (I mean a lot) of time identifying each and every buck on a couple different properties. I spend all year running cameras. Over about 10 years of camera information, I've been able to trace a lot of deer from 1-1/2 years old to 3-1/2+ and one to 6-1/2 . I can tell you from my observations, I've seen 1-1/2 year old 6 points go to 2-1/2 year old 6 points and I've seen 1-1/2 year old spikes go to 2-1/2 year old 10 points. I don't see how anyone would be able to tell what a deer will be at 1-1/2 years old. On top of that, antlers always get larger one way or another, mass, length, etc. in the ranges of ages we are talking about.
> 
> And, at the end of the day, I don't see how many points a deer has to be anything significant to his overall health. I would shoot a 3-1/2 year old six point over a 2-1/2 year old 10 point in a heartbeat.


Age?


----------



## JVoutdoors

Hypox, this is where your side completely loses people like me.
"I spend a lot (I mean a lot) of time identifying each and every buck on a couple different properties. I spend all year running cameras. Over about 10 years of camera information, I've been able to trace a lot of deer from 1-1/2 years old to 3-1/2+ and one to 6-1/2 . ..."
What about those of us who get to hunt 2-3 times a year or a kid who is developing skills and learning? Why do I get your professional hunter status imposed on me?
How about the basic 2 license system? I can shoot one 4 pt and be done and you can buy 2 licenses, 2nd for a 4 plus on one side.


----------



## hypox

Waif said:


> C
> 
> 
> Age?
> View attachment 197969


Well, hard to say from just a skull and antlers and knowing nothing else, but I'll play.

Looks like this years deer (tag) and the skull looks freshly cleaned. I thought you already either said or implied you got one this year and it was 1-1/2, but maybe I mis-read something...didn't go back and look.

I'd guess 2-1/2 from the pic alone.


----------



## JVoutdoors

And where does everyone get off being able to tell how old a deer is by looking at a trail cam pic or seeing it in the woods? Especially the difference between a 2.5 and 3.5 for instance. Biologist have told me that is crap. Short of it being a button buck or old, no way to tell on the hoof. And they told me that after 4.5 -5 you cannot even use teeth to age them accurately. To much wear. But you guys spend 100 days in the woods and read the internet all day so I am sure you can set me straight.


----------



## Hillsdales Most Wanted

hypox said:


> Well, hard to say from just a skull and antlers and knowing nothing else, but I'll play.
> 
> Looks like this years deer (tag) and the skull looks freshly cleaned. I thought you already either said or implied you got one this year and it was 1-1/2, but maybe I mis-read something...didn't go back and look.
> 
> I'd guess 2-1/2 from the pic alone.


I want to play also !! I guess 7.5 ?


----------



## fanrwing

Waif said:


> C
> Age?
> View attachment 197969


AGE? Its as old as its going to get. In the end does anybody really think APRS are about age? Its about the antlers, gotta get them horns.


----------



## Waif

Not bad hypox:

Thanks for playing.
Pictures can be tough.
The pics subject is from 2012 and was a yearling.
A very nice potential specimen that fooled me I remain grateful for as it was a deer's life reduced to possession.
Not the first or last time I misjudged an age but would have been disappointing if site was being managed for better/ best potential.
I try to age on the hoof and see why A.P.R.'s are proposed to spare yearlings where antlers start compact, then debate which is more effective when more than antlers need to be considered.
His body seemed older but legs and brisket were in cover.
I miss judged him regardless by visual clues without considering(or counting) antler or an A.P.R. standard to let him go...
An exception and conditions allowed it and would have at four per one side minimum, but one less yearling resulted.
A small example of why high grading gets mentioned on occasion.


----------



## Tron322

what is everyones thought on Rompola's big buck shot in traverse city? before APR and seems like a dandy.

never seen anything like it out of penn.

can they claim a possible world record? I think we got better genetics up here, and Rompola killed a lot of nice bucks before that buck in 1998.


----------



## Munsterlndr

JVoutdoors said:


> And where does everyone get off being able to tell how old a deer is by looking at a trail cam pic or seeing it in the woods? Especially the difference between a 2.5 and 3.5 for instance. Biologist have told me that is crap. Short of it being a button buck or old, no way to tell on the hoof. And they told me that after 4.5 -5 you cannot even use teeth to age them accurately. To much wear. But you guys spend 100 days in the woods and read the internet all day so I am sure you can set me straight.


A lot of truth to what you say. Ken Gee's study sure was pretty interesting in that regard, they tested 34 practicing, well established deer biologists on known age jaws and found that on jaws where the known age was over 3 years old that the biologists incorrectly aged the jaw 60% of the time.


----------



## hypox

JVoutdoors said:


> What about those of us who get to hunt 2-3 times a year or a kid who is developing skills and learning? Why do I get your professional hunter status imposed on me?
> How about the basic 2 license system? I can shoot one 4 pt and be done and you can buy 2 licenses, 2nd for a 4 plus on one side.


Well, I would say that any APR's are not for me, they would be for you! I'm doing my thing regardless.

I'd would think that someone with limited time to hunt would want more of the bucks to be older. If I was only hunting 2-3 times a year and pretty much going out blind, I'd want the best shot at seeing a decent deer as possible. Do you not want to shoot a larger buck than a yearling?


----------



## poz

farmlegend said:


> Yeah, but "before" for those guys means 15-20+ years ago, not last week.


But they were allowed legally to do it. they weren't force to pass deer. they had a choice of what they could shoot. But they don't want to give new hunters or young hunters the same choices they had, because it now effects yours and their hunting. Talk about greed.


----------



## hypox

JVoutdoors said:


> And where does everyone get off being able to tell how old a deer is by looking at a trail cam pic or seeing it in the woods? Especially the difference between a 2.5 and 3.5 for instance. Biologist have told me that is crap. Short of it being a button buck or old, no way to tell on the hoof. And they told me that after 4.5 -5 you cannot even use teeth to age them accurately. To much wear. But you guys spend 100 days in the woods and read the internet all day so I am sure you can set me straight.



When you are monitoring the same deer year in and year out, it's not as hard as you would think.

Tonight for example my Cousin texted me at about 4:30pm and said he just saw a specific (known) deer. Just from that information, not only did I guess what property he was hunting (yeah, that would be obvious right), I knew what stand he was hunting and correctly guessed how he saw the deer and exactly where he saw him. I knew all of that just by him saying he saw "XYZ" deer.


----------



## Munsterlndr

hypox said:


> Well, I would say that any APR's are not for me, they would be for you! I'm doing my thing regardless.
> 
> I'd would think that someone with limited time to hunt would want more of the bucks to be older. If I was only hunting 2-3 times a year and pretty much going out blind, I'd want the best shot at seeing a decent deer as possible. Do you not want to shoot a larger buck than a yearling?


Do you think it's as likely that a hunter in that scenario could shoot an older buck with the same frequency that they could shoot a yearling?


----------



## Rut-N-Strut

mustang72 said:


> And this why we need the "M" in MAPRS!


If all you MAPR supporters would just "Walk the walk", instead of "Talking the Talk"....you wouldn't "*NEED" * the *"M". 
*


----------



## Rut-N-Strut

farmlegend said:


> Yeah, but "before" for those guys means 15-20+ years ago, not last week.


What do have against the "newbie" who may have just shot his first buck last week, and it happened to be a yearling?

btw. Tell us how you really feel about anyone who dares to shoot a yearling, don't be shy....and don't hold back....


----------



## hypox

Munsterlndr said:


> Do you think it's as likely that a hunter in that scenario could shoot an older buck with the same frequency that they could shoot a yearling?


I didn't think we had a specific scenario spelled out, but I believe a hunter in a system that protects some yearling bucks has a better shot at shooting an older deer than in no protection system at all.


----------



## GDLUCK

hypox said:


> I I do think however that a good number of people would benefit from a higher possibility of getting more meat and PROBABLY consider their experiences more fun if they saw more bucks. I don't know a hunter alive that doesn't like to see deer while hunting and doesn't like seeing bucks.


Maybe some but to me a buck i cant shoot is no more enjoyable than a doe i don't want to shoot. While i enjoy seeing does it doesn't get my knees knocking, heart rate racing, and adrenaline pumping like a shooter buck.

And i'm not afraid to admit that after 32 years, 20+ bucks harvested, and dozens more sighted i still get the fever even from a spike. When i don't i'll hang up the gear.



hypox said:


> Well, I would say that any APR's are not for me, they would be for you! I'm doing my thing regardless.
> 
> I'd would think that someone with limited time to hunt would want more of the bucks to be older. If I was only hunting 2-3 times a year and pretty much going out blind, I'd want the best shot at seeing a decent deer as possible. Do you not want to shoot a larger buck than a yearling?


We want the best shot at a harvestable deer. meat in the freezer. a successful hunt. a memorable hunt. after all these years and all the deer i've taken my most memorable are honestly some of the smallest. That is a fact. my biggest, a 12 or 13 point, I'd have to look to be sure, isn't even close to the top. A decent 7 point i took is near the top but not because of the rack. 

Near the top - a 8-10 inch spike with one horn broke off. a 3 on one side and one on the other. That was my first deer. My first hunt. opening day about 1pm. My step-grandfather took me hunting as my dad didn't hunt. I dreamed of that day for years before i was able to go. Not even sure i had seen a deer in the wild before. Grandpa gut and drug the deer for me. That was 32 years ago. I bet i can show you the tree i was sitting against and where that deer dropped within 10 yards.

It was almost 20 years later before i was able to do the same for him. His little basket 6 point is at the top too.

I had a nice buck, to my standards, come by this year. at @ 60 yards. when i first saw him I could clearly see the main beam and the first tine on both sides. is that the G2? couldnt see brow tines as he was broadside to me. i had scope on him the whole time he walked by but every opening was the same view. eventually he turned his head in the last small opening. BROW TINE! no shot. if you asked me today where that deer walked or was standing I would have a hard time getting to within 20 yards of where he was. Will i remember that deer. yes. will it be memorable. NO.

So you know, I need to thank you. typing this confirmed something I knew and made me realize something new. 

I hunt for the memories. Not the horns. the 20 or so years I was able to hunt and harvest those scrawny bucks with my Grandfather were my happiest and most memorable. i wouldn't trade em for any number of those giant TV show deer.


----------



## Waif

johnhunter247 said:


> I
> 
> Identify it by its balls and put your buck tag on your button... If you don't have three inches does your wife buy your clothes in the woman's section? It's a restriction no matter how you slice it and someone came up with it!


Can't resist...

http://www.wsj.com/articles/oh-deer-its-an-antlered-doe-1421103734

http://www.mlive.com/outdoors/index.ssf/2010/11/velvet-antlered_bucks_shot_in.html


----------



## 357Maximum

GDLUCK said:


> Maybe some but to me a buck i cant shoot is no more enjoyable than a doe i don't want to shoot. While i enjoy seeing does it doesn't get my knees knocking, heart rate racing, and adrenaline pumping like a shooter buck.
> 
> And i'm not afraid to admit that after 32 years, 20+ bucks harvested, and dozens more sighted i still get the fever even from a spike. When i don't i'll hang up the gear.
> 
> 
> 
> We want the best shot at a harvestable deer. meat in the freezer. a successful hunt. a memorable hunt. after all these years and all the deer i've taken my most memorable are honestly some of the smallest. That is a fact. my biggest, a 12 or 13 point, I'd have to look to be sure, isn't even close to the top. A decent 7 point i took is near the top but not because of the rack.
> 
> Near the top - a 8-10 inch spike with one horn broke off. a 3 on one side and one on the other. That was my first deer. My first hunt. opening day about 1pm. My step-grandfather took me hunting as my dad didn't hunt. I dreamed of that day for years before i was able to go. Not even sure i had seen a deer in the wild before. Grandpa gut and drug the deer for me. That was 32 years ago. I bet i can show you the tree i was sitting against and where that deer dropped within 10 yards.
> 
> It was almost 20 years later before i was able to do the same for him. His little basket 6 point is at the top too.
> 
> I had a nice buck, to my standards, come by this year. at @ 60 yards. when i first saw him I could clearly see the main beam and the first tine on both sides. is that the G2? couldnt see brow tines as he was broadside to me. i had scope on him the whole time he walked by but every opening was the same view. eventually he turned his head in the last small opening. BROW TINE! no shot. if you asked me today where that deer walked or was standing I would have a hard time getting to within 20 yards of where he was. Will i remember that deer. yes. will it be memorable. NO.
> 
> So you know, I need to thank you. typing this confirmed something I knew and made me realize something new.
> 
> I hunt for the memories. Not the horns. the 20 or so years I was able to hunt and harvest those scrawny bucks with my Grandfather were my happiest and most memorable. i wouldn't trade em for any number of those giant TV show deer.


That's the best thing I have read on here in days. THANK YOU

I find it so hard to fathom someone wanting to steal that from you, but they exist apparently. I did not realize they were so numerous til I landed here. I find the fact that they would rob you of that both sad and appalling all at the same time. If I ever get to the point where the mere sight of deer while on stand stops making my ticker tick faster, I am going fishing. I think some people need to find another hobby or obsession myself. Too many canned hunt videos have apparently ruined deer hunting for them I guess.


----------



## hypox

GDLUCK said:


> I hunt for the memories. Not the horns.





GDLUCK said:


> than a doe i don't want to shoot


So why do you really hunt?


----------



## johnhunter247

Waif said:


> Can't resist...
> 
> http://www.wsj.com/articles/oh-deer-its-an-antlered-doe-1421103734


Okay, so maybe some woman have to buy there underwear in the men's section!rotest_eI wonder where Bruce Jenner buys his?:Welcome:


----------



## hypox

357Maximum said:


> I am going fishing.


I've been catching steel since Nov 15th


----------



## 357Maximum

hypox said:


> I've been catching steel since Nov 15th


I did not start til the 18th. YOU WIN


----------



## 2508speed

johnhunter247 said:


> Okay, so maybe some woman have to buy there underwear in the men's section!rotest_eI wonder where Bruce Jenner buys his?:Welcome:


Transylvania.


----------



## mbrewer

hypox said:


> Well, I would say that any APR's are not for me, they would be for you! I'm doing my thing regardless.


"You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall".


----------



## 357Maximum

mbrewer said:


> "You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall".


The first 60 seconds or so of this sums up the MANDATORY apr er's rather nicely me thinks:


----------



## FREEPOP

johnhunter247 said:


> I
> 
> Identify it by its balls and put your buck tag on your button... If you don't have three inches does your wife buy your clothes in the woman's section? It's a restriction no matter how you slice it and someone came up with it!


No restriction with a doe tag in my pocket. If it's brown it's down 

BTW, no wife 

Your comments are quite personal. Please keep it up so you can get your one way ticket to banned camp.


----------



## mbrewer

357Maximum said:


> The first 60 seconds or so of this sums up the MANDATORY apr er's rather nicely me thinks:


I'm not sure why you quoted my post but since you did I feel like I have to say I disagree with your premise. People, almost universally, are selfish one way or another. 

Ignorance, apathy, lack of empathy, self righteousness, you name it, it's here in spades. Selfish is an excuse, of course we are. Why are we selfish? 

More understanding leads to less selfishness. When I look to identify and eliminate selfishness I start with me.


----------



## DirtySteve

Munsterlndr said:


> Do you think it's as likely that a hunter in that scenario could shoot an older buck with the same frequency that they could shoot a yearling?


I think that would be the goal here if not the same frequency close enough that we couldn't tell the difference. What I mean by that is buck harvest rate not dropping by more than 3-5%. That is what my personal number not something some organization like qdma preaches or anything like that. I am sure some would argue that isn't acceptable.

We can argue all day long on the affects of MAPR'S michigan and get nowhere. I think it would have to be tried to really know. I am willing to try it. 

I also have young hunters in my house. I don't see where they would be cheated at all. I can tell you they are both for APR'S. Both of my son's will shoot the first spike they see currently.....but the idea of big horns excites them.


----------



## hypox

357Maximum said:


> I personally see a max increase of about 35-44% going from the smallest 1.5 to the biggest 3.5 here in the Fertile SLP Monsanto plains. That's comparing worst case vs best case scenarios btw.
> 
> 50% I might buy maybe. maybe
> 
> Did that 90% come from Saskatchewan? Was the buck born in Georgia and then moved to Saskatchewan? Not being nitpicky here, I truly want to know as I have never seen it in bucks I have killed here and other places.


Waif's deer got 40# of meat, mine got 75#...can you do the math for me?


----------



## 357Maximum

hypox said:


> Waif's deer got 40# of meat, mine got 75#...can you do the math for me?


I have never seen that. In 265+ buck deer ranging from 1.5 to 4.5 I have helped process of mine and others...I HAVE NEVER SEEN THAT EVER, not once. That's all I am saying is that I HAVE NOT.


----------



## mbrewer

357Maximum said:


> When I read your post I thought of "my precious", it fired a neuron no biggie. I'm the most selfish individual on the planet. There are 4 or 5 guys here that will back that up I am sure. I keep wanting to give THEIR deer to others a year too early apparently...that's how selfish I am....what an ass I am.



I did not intend to direct criticism at you or anyone else. It's bow season again, I'm thinking I should be spending my time more wisely than I have been. 

Best wishes.


----------



## 357Maximum

mbrewer said:


> I did not intend to direct criticism at you or anyone else. It's bow season again, I'm thinking I should be spending my time more wisely than I have been.
> 
> Best wishes.



No criticism taken, just explaining myself, my ha ha half funny did not fly so well. Good luck hunting.


----------



## hypox

357Maximum said:


> I have never seen that. In 265+ buck deer ranging from 1.5 to 4.5 I have helped process of mine and others...I HAVE NEVER SEEN THAT EVER, not once. That's all I am saying is that I HAVE NOT.


I asked in this thread how much meat you get off a yearling buck. I got an answer and came up with percentages based on that and the deer I harvest. That is all. If my percentages are off because of that, please excuse them.


----------



## Munsterlndr

hypox said:


> Waif's deer got 40# of meat, mine got 75#...can you do the math for me?


 A realistic meat yield is about 1/3 of the field dressed weight, that's deboned meat. I believe Waifs 40 lbs is about normal for a yearling bucks yield, roughly 120 lbs field dressed and about 160 lbs on the hoof. Your amount of meat would would indicate a field dressed weight of around 225 lbs and a live weight of 300 lbs on the hoof. That's either a heck of a buck or else your yield info is incorrect. 

Depending on what part of the state you are hunting in, a typical 3.5 year old is going to dress out around 175 lbs. That would give you a realistic meat yield of around 58 lbs., or an increased yield of 45% but most of the bucks harvested under APR's are going to be younger then 3.5 so an increased yield of 30% to 35% is a much more realistic estimate.


----------



## Waif

hypox said:


> I asked in this thread how much meat you get off a yearling buck. I got an answer and came up with percentages based on that and the deer I harvest. That is all. If my percentages are off because of that, please excuse them.


I trim very well, very well, and could add weight to a deer for some one else, and would too (as it seems so much more laborious anymore with no grinding usually...) if greatest possible yield was the object several pounds could be added by grinding,or lots of silverskin fat and connective tissue on everything else.
Some claim fifty percent yield. I average about a third ,so a 120 lb.(dressed) yearling is about 40 lbs.
Elsewhere I posted yields averaged by processors varying from live weight ,to dressed weight, to dressed skinned and beheaded weight as starting point.
Been years since weighing meat though. Don't even own a scale anymore.
Record low was 18 lbs. showing a young guy how to cut up his first.. fawn near a bow opener.
Don't know record highs but it seemed (un weighed )twice an average 40 lb. yield yearling a couple times.

A yearling is fine by me still. Course most deer are, but whatever...40 lbs. beats no lbs..
Every so often I want a dead deer and a yearling hangs just fine.
Buck, doe, either is fine unless landowner or law says no.
Big o 40 lbs. o meat...:corkysm55


----------



## Munsterlndr

Waif said:


> I trim very well, very well, and could add weight to a deer for some one else, and would too (as it seems so much more laborious anymore with no grinding usually...) if greatest possible yield was the object several pounds could be added by grinding,or lots of silverskin fat and connective tissue on everything else.
> Some claim fifty percent yield. I average about a third ,so a 120 lb.(dressed) yearling is about 40 lbs.
> Elsewhere I posted yields averaged by processors varying from live weight ,to dressed weight, to dressed skinned and beheaded weight as starting point.
> Been years since weighing meat though. Don't even own a scale anymore.
> Record low was 18 lbs. showing a young guy how to cut up his first.. fawn near a bow opener.
> Don't know record highs but it seemed (un weighed )twice an average 40 lb. yield yearling a couple times.
> 
> A yearling is fine by me still. Course most deer are, but whatever...40 lbs. beats no lbs..
> Every so often I want a dead deer and a yearling hangs just fine.
> Buck, doe, either is fine unless landowner or law says no.
> Big o 40 lbs. o meat...:corkysm55


I also do my own deer and trim to the extreme, as fat and silverskin give the venison a gamey taste that I don't like. I think that 1/3 dressed weight meat yield is a pretty realistic figure, unless you are throwing all of the fat, connective tissue, etc. into a grinder.


----------



## fanrwing

hypox said:


> Waif's deer got 40# of meat, mine got 75#...can you do the math for me?


Problem is you are taking one set of numbers and making assumptions ignoring any and all of the other possible factors. Did the same guy do the processing. How much meat was wasted by shot placement? Where were these deer shot? Deer in farm country near the border with Indiana will be bigger than those shot in the hard woods of the NLP. What does the amount of meat have to do with APRs? When the non APR crowd suggests it's about the antlers The pro APR guys respond, "No, no we just want to expand the age structure." Now it seems you are no longer just concerned with the size of the antlers of the deer someone else shoots but you also worry about the amount of meat he gets. 

Making assumptions that may be and probably are wrong based on incomplete or false data is common around here. Read through these posts and some of the other threads and you will find comments on how APRs are working in the NW12 based on the comments of some hunters. There have been no studies showing this "great" success. These assumptions are based on comments from some hunters and ignore comments from those who have seen no increase or perhaps a decrease in mature buck sightings. These assumptions also ignore the countless other variables, increase/decrease in agriculture in the area, good/poor mast production, effect of the past two winters, just plain luck. The list goes on and on.

This entire thread is based on the reported increase in hunters in PA. The unproven assumption is that APRs have caused this and the inference is that Michigan could have similar success by adopting APRs. Again these assumptions ignore the limitless number of other reasons. One poster mentioned people going to PA from NJ is it APRs or that PA has more areas to hunt, a longer season and fewer restrictions on firearms. Are people going to PA that would have gone to NY because there is a belief that NY is anti any activity that involves a gun. Has the PA Office of Tourism done a good job in selling their state as a go to destination for all sorts of activities. (I get 3 or 4 e-mails a week inviting me to PA for all sorts of activities.)

Some of the pro APR crowd like to imply that those opposed are advocating shooting Button Bucks. So that it is clear I am against the shooting of BBs by anyone in any season but I am opposed to the APRs in the NW12 and the way they were instituted. *What I do advocate is that people enjoy their time in the outdoors and mind their own damn business and not concern themselves with what the guys down the street or across the state shoots.*


----------



## Radar420

Munsterlndr said:


> No it's not a restriction, it's an identifier to delineate between antlered and antlerless deer. Antler protections put a specific type of buck off limits to harvest, thus offering protection. The 3" rule offers no protection as those bucks are still subject to harvest, it simply delineates which license or weapon must be used to harvest them.


It should be noted that when the 3" rule was initially enacted, antlerless deer were off limits so a 3" rule was a restriction making certain bucks off limits.

It should also be noted that for a large portion of the UP the 3" rule is an antler restriction as well since the combo tag rules no longer allow the harvest of antlerless deer with archery equipment.


----------



## FREEPOP

Radar420 said:


> It should be noted that when the 3" rule was initially enacted, antlerless deer were off limits so a 3" rule was a restriction making certain bucks off limits.
> 
> It should also be noted that for a large portion of the UP the 3" rule is an antler restriction as well since the combo tag rules no longer allow the harvest of antlerless deer with archery equipment.


It should be noted that the intention was not to limit the bucks taken or protect them but to ensure that deer had the identifying feature, ie. 3" minimum antler.


----------



## hypox

I cut most of my own deer but couldn't this year. I took it to a professional meat processor, smokehouse and restaurant in town. They vacuum seal and print the date, cut, and weight to the hundredth of a pound on each package.

I added up all the packages (just now) and the total is 76.05 pounds. *This is minus (2) packages of meat* as well. I've used a 1.5 pound package of burger and also a package of buttery loins (estimate 1# for those). So the total was probably closer to 78.55 pounds. I suppose the vacuum seal wrapper is included in this weight? I'm pretty confident I got about 75 pounds of meat. Also, nothing was added to the burger, it's pure venison.

I wouldn't consider the amount of meat I got out of the ordinary from when I process my own, it actually seemed like less at first, but later I figured it was the excellent packaging that made it look that way. And yes, this was a 3-1/2 year old buck, not 2-1/2 year old buck. I don't know what his dressed weight was, but I'd guess around 180#.

Given that information, are we not at an 85%+ potential increase (using the accepted 40# for a yearling) of meat from a yearling to a 3-1/2 year old buck?


----------



## Radar420

FREEPOP said:


> It should be noted that the intention was not to limit the bucks taken or protect them but to ensure that deer had the identifying feature, ie. 3" minimum antler.


A size limit is unnecessary in situations where antlerless deer are off limits as any visible antler should suffice for a deer to be legal. Now if hunters wanted to voluntarily limit themselves to deer with at least 3" of antler then...:lol:

Furthermore the only place I've ever seen it called an identifier is on this website - all DNR literature refers to it as an antler restriction.


----------



## Munsterlndr

Radar420 said:


> A size limit is unnecessary in situations where antlerless deer are off limits as any visible antler should suffice for a deer to be legal. Now if hunters wanted to voluntarily limit themselves to deer with at least 3" of antler then...:lol:
> 
> Furthermore the only place I've ever seen it called an identifier is on this website - all DNR literature refers to it as an antler restriction.


You seriously think that the intent of the 3" minimum antler limitation was to protect sub-3" bucks? Seriously? Or was it to protect antlerless deer?


----------



## Radar420

Munsterlndr said:


> You seriously think that the intent of the 3" minimum antler limitation was to protect sub-3" bucks? Seriously? Or was it to protect antlerless deer?


I'm just making the point that the 3" rule is an antler point restriction - it protects sub 3" antlered bucks in certain situations. Whether or not that was the purpose of the rule is irrelevant.


----------



## Munsterlndr

Radar420 said:


> I'm just making the point that the 3" rule is an antler point restriction - it protects sub 3" antlered bucks in certain situations. Whether or not that was the purpose of the rule is irrelevant.


It's purpose is delineation between antlered and antlerless deer. Whether that delineation sometimes provides all antlerless deer some protection is moot from an antler point restriction standpoint as does don't have antlers but are protected as well under that delineation.


----------



## FREEPOP

:lol:


----------



## Waif

hypox said:


> I cut most of my own deer but couldn't this year. I took it to a professional meat processor, smokehouse and restaurant in town. They vacuum seal and print the date, cut, and weight to the hundredth of a pound on each package.
> 
> I added up all the packages (just now) and the total is 76.05 pounds. *This is minus (2) packages of meat* as well. I've used a 1.5 pound package of burger and also a package of buttery loins (estimate 1# for those). So the total was probably closer to 78.55 pounds. I suppose the vacuum seal wrapper is included in this weight? I'm pretty confident I got about 75 pounds of meat. Also, nothing was added to the burger, it's pure venison.
> 
> I wouldn't consider the amount of meat I got out of the ordinary from when I process my own, it actually seemed like less at first, but later I figured it was the excellent packaging that made it look that way. And yes, this was a 3-1/2 year old buck, not 2-1/2 year old buck. I don't know what his dressed weight was, but I'd guess around 180#.
> 
> Given that information, are we not at an 85%+ potential increase (using the accepted 40# for a yearling) of meat from a yearling to a 3-1/2 year old buck?


What is your point?
A law needed to ensure certain weights are preferred?
Approximating gives me..
Fawn, depending on variables of age and condition.=20 lbs. boned and trimmed.

Yearling double that at 40 lbs,
Double the yearlings weight at three years of age if buck killed when prime ,not after or far into rut.
To go eighty lbs. is high for some areas and low for others with many "mature" bucks averaging around 150 dressed just south and west of lower Mi's peninsula's midpoint after rut has been going on in areas with a 160 lb. doe near three years of age a fine doe.

150 lb.dressed avg buck,nonyearling..1/3 of that in meat alone is fifty pounds.
Puts your buck at what,225 dressed?
twentyfive pound difference is way beyond the normal ten pound gain of a two or three year old over a yearling.
Subject to accurate 150 lb. average of course with specimens higher in weight in some regions vs others, and I have not been hanging around any processors or scales.


----------



## fanrwing

Even if the 3" rule was an antler restriction if it's purpose was to protect does (the female of the species) then it was a biological reason. There is no biological reason for the types of APRs being discussed they are purely social in that some hunters want them and some others don't. The qualifier in APRs is the number of antler points all this other discussion is off the topic. How well a guy thinks he processes his deer has nothing to do with APRs nor does it relate to the PA situation.

Guys like to shoot big deer, its OK if you say so. Some guys like to shoot big deer but on occasion will take a smaller (younger) deer that should be OK too.


----------



## hypox

Waif said:


> What is your point?


My point was my numbers were not that far off when answering munster's question below.



Munsterlndr said:


> So if that's the case, then the chances of that 3 - 4 day hunter being able to harvest a buck would decrease under APR's?


My answer below.


hypox said:


> We'll have to wait and see with that one. Those yearling bucks do grow up you know, they don't magically disappear. They go in someone's freezer, and when they do, they have 50-90% more meat.


The only thing is that my 50-90% (guess from quick numbers earier in this thread) should be replaced with 35-85% (to be more accurate, I'll accept munster's 35% for 2-1/2 YO, but I'm standing firm on up to 85% for 3-1/2 YO). So when those yearling bucks grow up to age classes of 2-1/2 year olds and some 3-1/2 year olds, they will go in to someone's freezer with 35-85% more meat than a yearling harvest.

That's it.


----------



## Hillsdales Most Wanted

PA BUCK 2 said:


> Here are a couple of bucks from Western PA's opening day that my brother and nephew shot. My brother purchased 90 acres in Butler county 5 years ago. It is loaded with deer. I hope that I will be able to join them again next year. Miss hunting those hills.
> 
> 
> 
> My nephew said that this was the 40th deer he saw and it was 8:30 in the morning!!!


WOW this is awesome ! Congratz. Thanks 4 posting, more proof for the good guys.


----------



## FREEPOP

All the deer weight discussons are pretty pointless if you only shoot one every 5 years.
I pack 3-5 in the freezer every year. If they're on the small side, go get another one or two.


----------



## poz

Hillsdales Most Wanted said:


> WOW this is awesome ! Congratz. Thanks 4 posting, more proof for the good guys.


What proof, 40 deer on ninety acres. Even if they saw half the deer in the square mile. that's about 80 DPSM. The good guys you talk about only want about 25 DPSM in Michigan. How do you expect the same results with 1/3 the herd.


----------



## fanrwing

mbrewer said:


> Why are you against someone shooting a button buck? And how is it your business at all in light of your emphatic comment regarding minding your own business.


I should clarify that I'm against shooting fawns, I do mind my own business, I'm against it but don't go out of my way to stop it except by trying to educate and encourage new hunters in learning to ID young deer esp. diff between a young doe and a large BB. I also encourage patience, unless she has recently been shot or out getting bred if you see fawns, mom is close by. Even if you don't want to shoot the does they are what will bring the bucks your way.

In the spirit of full complete honesty I did speak up one time over the killing of a couple of BBs. I watched as a group of 5, 23 to 25 yrs. old guys surrounded a couple of button bucks and pump about a dozen rounds into them. They were less than hundred yards away only a few feet over the property line. I only spoke up when in their laughing and joking it became clear that they had no intention of tagging or keeping the deer. Things got heated esp. when I mentioned that if I didn't see a tag put on them I would be calling the DNR. I left the area before it got to out of hand and did stop to call the DNR the guy I talked to seemed sympathetic but it was clear nothing would become of it. They're too busy and that sort of crap happens all over the place.


----------



## jr28schalm

Thank you for showing pa pics.. Every thing on here now turns into people pushing there ideas of whats right....


----------



## Hillsdales Most Wanted

poz said:


> What proof, 40 deer on ninety acres. Even if they saw half the deer in the square mile. that's about 80 DPSM. The good guys you talk about only want about 25 DPSM in Michigan. How do you expect the same results with 1/3 the herd.


Im talking about the 2 nice bucks. Im talking about the future of MAPR !! Just excited to see the great possibilities


----------



## brushbuster

Munsterlndr said:


> If he saw 40 deer on a 90 acre parcel before 8:30 in the morning then I would have to say that it's likely that herd densities are way too high and that is not a management system that we should be emulating.


Lol.didn't they have a problem with large herd densities under TDM?Isn't that part of the reason why they stopped TDM and implemented APRs and an aggressive doe management plan?


----------



## brushbuster

FREEPOP said:


> All the deer weight discussons are pretty pointless if you only shoot one every 5 years.
> I pack 3-5 in the freezer every year. If they're on the small side, go get another one or two.


I use to do that but for obvious reasons I stopped.


----------



## JVoutdoors

Fanrwing, you bring up another variable the MAPR team either doesn't realize is present or refuse the consider in their utopian world. Being born and raised in the sticks of the NW and being very knowledgeable of many hunters and locals attitudes in these rural areas, you cannot legislate ethics or even compliance. I would estimate there are 50 deer shot illegally for every bust a CO makes and we read about. Wrong but the way the world works and reality.


----------



## poz

fanrwing said:


> I should clarify that I'm against shooting fawns, I do mind my own business, I'm against it but don't go out of my way to stop it except by trying to educate and encourage new hunters in learning to ID young deer esp. diff between a young doe and a large BB. I also encourage patience, unless she has recently been shot or out getting bred if you see fawns, mom is close by. Even if you don't want to shoot the does they are what will bring the bucks your way.
> 
> In the spirit of full complete honesty I did speak up one time over the killing of a couple of BBs. I watched as a group of 5, 23 to 25 yrs. old guys surrounded a couple of button bucks and pump about a dozen rounds into them. They were less than hundred yards away only a few feet over the property line. I only spoke up when in their laughing and joking it became clear that they had no intention of tagging or keeping the deer. Things got heated esp. when I mentioned that if I didn't see a tag put on them I would be calling the DNR. I left the area before it got to out of hand and did stop to call the DNR the guy I talked to seemed sympathetic but it was clear nothing would become of it. They're too busy and that sort of crap happens all over the place.


Actually, if you need to shoot a doe, a doe fawn is the one to shoot. especially in areas of low deer numbers and bad winters. it's been discussed on here before. A doe fawn will be the first to fall in a bad winter. Also it probably isn't bred yet. It might get bred late. but even then it is more likely to die from a bad winter than an older doe.


----------



## FREEPOP

brushbuster said:


> I use to do that but for obvious reasons I stopped.


If I don't the farmer will just let the next guy that comes along.


----------



## Munsterlndr

brushbuster said:


> Lol.didn't they have a problem with large herd densities under TDM?Isn't that part of the reason why they stopped TDM and implemented APRs and an aggressive doe management plan?


High deer densities were why they changed to concurrent antlered and antlerless seasons and expanded antlerless licenses. APR's were a carrot designed to counter that stick according to Gary Alt but had nothing substantive to do with HR efforts. High densities didn't have anything to do with TDM, they had to do with antlerless allocation and split seasons where many hunters had already bagged a buck before having the option to take a doe.


----------



## jr28schalm

Im so glad i sold my land in the tb zone and bought land in nw12.....aprs are here to stay they will slowly just keep moveing down


----------



## swampbuck

Waif said:


> Not an A.P.R. survey....
> I was thinking we voted during an election one year on the N.R.C. being created/established...and part of the reasoning then was to and may have actually been worded on the ballet,"sound scientific management".
> 
> ( Proposal G in November 1996)


Ohhh that. The implemented that with the MNREPA. Which pretty much trashed what we voted for.


----------



## PA BUCK 2

Man you guys sure piece together things without knowing the complete picture. His 90 acres is bordered on the North and South by large dairy farms. These probably total 1500-2000 acres. To the East there is a parcel that is about 80 acres that has hound dogs on the other side of that is a sub division. To the west is an Elk farm with total acreage of about 150. My brothers property has a small creek and large swamp with steep ridges. It offers probably the best bedding cover around so the deer flock to it. They pour into it from the fields in the AM and it is like a migration in the evening... Top it off with the habitat work, twenty to thirty acres of brushy sanctuary cover, and small plots that he added and deer moving around all day on this property. It truly is an awesome piece of ground with funnels that force deer into moving in a predictable manner.


----------



## jr28schalm

Thank you for sharing pa buck......


----------



## poz

PA BUCK 2 said:


> Man you guys sure piece together things without knowing the complete picture. His 90 acres is bordered on the North and South by large dairy farms. These probably total 1500-2000 acres. To the East there is a parcel that is about 80 acres that has hound dogs on the other side of that is a sub division. To the west is an Elk farm with total acreage of about 150. My brothers property has a small creek and large swamp with steep ridges. It offers probably the best bedding cover around so the deer flock to it. They pour into it from the fields in the AM and it is like a migration in the evening... Top it off with the habitat work, twenty to thirty acres of brushy sanctuary cover, and small plots that he added and deer moving around all day on this property. It truly is an awesome piece of ground with funnels that force deer into moving in a predictable manner.


nothing to piece together. There are plenty of great properties in Michigan just like that or even better. But the fact remains, if you go back and read old posts, we have guys on here that want deer below carrying capacity. Just look at the Poll in the other thread.


----------



## fanrwing

PA BUCK 2 said:


> Man you guys sure piece together things without knowing the complete picture. His 90 acres is bordered on the North and South by large dairy farms. These probably total 1500-2000 acres. To the East there is a parcel that is about 80 acres that has hound dogs on the other side of that is a sub division. To the west is an Elk farm with total acreage of about 150. My brothers property has a small creek and large swamp with steep ridges. It offers probably the best bedding cover around so the deer flock to it. They pour into it from the fields in the AM and it is like a migration in the evening... Top it off with the habitat work, twenty to thirty acres of brushy sanctuary cover, and small plots that he added and deer moving around all day on this property. It truly is an awesome piece of ground with funnels that force deer into moving in a predictable manner.


So to be clear he has a good piece of property surrounded by folks who don't pressure the deer. APRs most likely have nothing to do with it. It is unique compared to a lot of other property so guys discussing carrying capacity and relating it to any thing here is pretty meaningless.

Still some dandy bucks


----------



## soggybtmboys

FREEPOP said:


> All the deer weight discussons are pretty pointless if you only shoot one every 5 years.
> I pack 3-5 in the freezer every year. If they're on the small side, go get another one or two.


If this is directed at me, I can assure you I keep the freezer well stocked...with does. 5 year span was on bucks, with passing numerous 2.5 yr olds that would easily meet any APR.


----------



## PA BUCK 2

fanrwing said:


> So to be clear he has a good piece of property surrounded by folks who don't pressure the deer. APRs most likely have nothing to do with it. It is unique compared to a lot of other property so guys discussing carrying capacity and relating it to any thing here is pretty meaningless.
> 
> Still some dandy bucks


APRs sure do protect some of the smaller, immature bucks on his and surrounding properties. We are seeing A LOT more bucks and A LOT of really big bucks. Now in this area there is no public land- so the does have not been affected as much as SGL property. One other thing I noticed hunting there since the APR, in this area it is 3 points on one side not counting brow tines, is some very large 3 and 4 point bucks. Heavy antlered, 20-24 inches wide type of bucks. Two years ago I had one of these bed down about 40 yards from me and stay there chasing does and then bedding again for about and hour and a half. Could only smile and watch him- which was fun.


----------



## johnhunter247

jr28schalm said:


> Im so glad i sold my land in the tb zone and bought land in nw12.....aprs are here to stay they will slowly just keep moveing down


I hate the slowly part! Baby steps are frustrating...


----------



## FREEPOP

Patience comes with maturity not age.


----------



## johnhunter247

FREEPOP said:


> Patience comes with maturity not age.


Problem is no one is getting any younger...


----------



## FREEPOP

johnhunter247 said:


> Problem is no one is getting any younger...


Makes the goal sound self serving


----------



## motdean

Here is one for ya to ponder:

How about those that are allowed to vote in the next APR survey are forced to hunt how they vote for the next 5 years. In other words, if you vote in favor of APR's, you are forced by law to hunt that way for the next 5 regardless of whether they pass or not. 

I wonder how many votes would not have been cast as "yes" votes in Mi if it wasn't a certainty that their neighbors would be forced into it. (Difficult to enforce, I know, but I bet at least some of the votes would have been switched, I bet...)


----------



## Rut-N-Strut

FREEPOP said:


> Makes the goal sound self serving


Who knew that the "Everyone deserves a Trophy just for participating" thing would come back to bite the backside?:lol:


----------



## jr28schalm

In my area half were doing it before aprs. .i know alot more are favoring it now ..i was able to buy the old man's 40 next to me cheap he was not haveing aprs


----------



## Captain of the 4-C's

This is the exact reason why APR's are a really bad idea:

APRs sure do protect some of the smaller, immature bucks on his and surrounding properties. We are seeing A LOT more bucks and A LOT of really big bucks. Now in this area there is no public land- so the does have not been affected as much as SGL property. *One other thing I noticed hunting there since the APR, in this area it is 3 points on one side not counting brow tines, is some very large 3 and 4 point bucks. Heavy antlered, 20-24 inches wide type of bucks.* Two years ago I had one of these bed down about 40 yards from me and stay there chasing does and then bedding again for about and hour and a half. Could only smile and watch him- which was fun.

*You really want these types of bucks doing the breeding - you APR guys are blind as bats. And yes - I am shouting - live with it and open your eyes.* In a few decades - this is what your older deer will have for racks.


----------



## jr28schalm

ok..u will be the one liveing with it..lol


----------



## PA BUCK 2

Captain of the 4-C's said:


> This is the exact reason why APR's are a really bad idea:
> 
> APRs sure do protect some of the smaller, immature bucks on his and surrounding properties. We are seeing A LOT more bucks and A LOT of really big bucks. Now in this area there is no public land- so the does have not been affected as much as SGL property. *One other thing I noticed hunting there since the APR, in this area it is 3 points on one side not counting brow tines, is some very large 3 and 4 point bucks. Heavy antlered, 20-24 inches wide type of bucks.* Two years ago I had one of these bed down about 40 yards from me and stay there chasing does and then bedding again for about and hour and a half. Could only smile and watch him- which was fun.
> 
> *You really want these types of bucks doing the breeding - you APR guys are blind as bats. And yes - I am shouting - live with it and open your eyes.* In a few decades - this is what your older deer will have for racks.


This is why I brought it up. The only hunters in PA that can legally take these deer at youth hunters- who can shoot bucks that do not meet the APR. I believe that from 12-15 they can shoot any buck but this is from memory. One thing that we have done is start to invite youth hunters that we know from schools, church.... and let them cut there teeth on on this property. What a rewarding way to get this done and promote the sport!!! I think ultimately if you are going to restrict what can be shot- it would be better to judge antler size and not points- kind of like a slot limit on spread. But it would be a nightmare to enforce..


----------



## Captain of the 4-C's

That's a great idea PA Buck 2. To be honest - I never gave much thought to APR's. But once I started to really think about it this year and read around, I now understand what "High Grading" is. I thought of it on my own but did not know it had a name to it already. I am all for an "older" buck structure - used to have a great one in the central UP a long time ago where I hunted. Doing so based solely on antler point number is not a good idea. Educating hunters in general and doing it on a voluntary basis is a much better approach. Right now - the current APR crowd is unwilling to wait for the education process and prefer to force it down every hunters throat as a law. I was never one to pick a fight - but I just might on this issue.


----------



## cdacker

Captain of the 4-C's said:


> That's a great idea PA Buck 2. To be honest - I never gave much thought to APR's. But once I started to really think about it this year and read around, I now understand what "High Grading" is. I thought of it on my own but did not know it had a name to it already. I am all for an "older" buck structure - used to have a great one in the central UP a long time ago where I hunted. Doing so based solely on antler point number is not a good idea. Educating hunters in general and doing it on a voluntary basis is a much better approach. Right now - the current APR crowd is unwilling to wait for the education process and prefer to force it down every hunters throat as a law. I was never one to pick a fight - but I just might on this issue.


Leelanau county is working on 12 years of APRs. How many complaints have you heard about high grading?


----------



## Rut-N-Strut

cdacker said:


> Leelanau county is working on 12 years of APRs. How many complaints have you heard about high grading?


They knew that high grading was a possibility.

That's probably why they supplement the 045 data with QDM/Taxidermy data.:evilsmile

Hard to get solid data out of minuscule data samples like the 045 data.


----------



## johnhunter247

motdean said:


> Here is one for ya to ponder:
> 
> How about those that are allowed to vote in the next APR survey are forced to hunt how they vote for the next 5 years. In other words, if you vote in favor of APR's, you are forced by law to hunt that way for the next 5 regardless of whether they pass or not.
> 
> I wonder how many votes would not have been cast as "yes" votes in Mi if it wasn't a certainty that their neighbors would be forced into it. (Difficult to enforce, I know, but I bet at least some of the votes would have been switched, I bet...)


I'm not getting what your trying to say. Mostly every hunter I have acquaintance with is for apr's and not one of them shoot small bucks. They don't even shoot bucks that would be legal if the apr was 4 on a side unless he is at least 125". I am for apr's and I don't shoot most of the bucks that would be legal under a 4pt apr. You guys keep trying to stretch straws do you don't draw the short one. Keep up the good work! Sooner or later you will find something relevant.


----------



## johnhunter247

motdean said:


> Here is one for ya to ponder:
> 
> How about those that are allowed to vote in the next APR survey are forced to hunt how they vote for the next 5 years. In other words, if you vote in favor of APR's, you are forced by law to hunt that way for the next 5 regardless of whether they pass or not.
> 
> I wonder how many votes would not have been cast as "yes" votes in Mi if it wasn't a certainty that their neighbors would be forced into it. (Difficult to enforce, I know, but I bet at least some of the votes would have been switched, I bet...)


You would have to reverse the roles too. Anyone who voted no would have to shoot 7pts and smaller. The buck you dream about at night would make you cry in your sleep because you couldn't take him when your chance came.


----------



## FREEPOP

johnhunter247 said:


> I'm not getting what your trying to say. Mostly every hunter I have acquaintance with is for apr's and not one of them shoot small bucks. They don't even shoot bucks that would be legal if the apr was 4 on a side unless he is at least 125". I am for apr's and I don't shoot most of the bucks that would be legal under a 4pt apr. You guys keep trying to stretch straws do you don't draw the short one. Keep up the good work! Sooner or later you will find something relevant.


Some reading for you:
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=confirmation bias


----------



## motdean

johnhunter247 said:


> You would have to reverse the roles too. Anyone who voted no would have to shoot 7pts and smaller. The buck you dream about at night would make you cry in your sleep because you couldn't take him when your chance came.


I would not mind in the least. Remember, I am all about ALLOWING people to shoot what satisfies them.


----------



## motdean

johnhunter247 said:


> I'm not getting what your trying to say. Mostly every hunter I have acquaintance with is for apr's and not one of them shoot small bucks. They don't even shoot bucks that would be legal if the apr was 4 on a side unless he is at least 125". I am for apr's and I don't shoot most of the bucks that would be legal under a 4pt apr. You guys keep trying to stretch straws do you don't draw the short one. Keep up the good work! Sooner or later you will find something relevant.



If that is the case, then why don't voluntary APR's work? Go read the thread about the TB zone whereby even Bio acknowledges that the deer are not getting to age. Even though *most people* supposedly want APR's, *most people* are not passing up the deer. Pass the Kool Aid, there big fella.


----------



## swampbuck

Rut-N-Strut said:


> They knew that high grading was a possibility.
> 
> That's probably why they supplement the 045 data with QDM/Taxidermy data.:evilsmile
> 
> Hard to get solid data out of minuscule data samples like the 045 data.


You should have left out the slash...it was check data + qdm(sponsor group)data + taxidermist data.

Yup, can't see no bias there...LOL


----------



## fanrwing

johnhunter247 said:


> I'm not getting what your trying to say. Mostly every hunter I have acquaintance with is for apr's and not one of them shoot small bucks. They don't even shoot bucks that would be legal if the apr was 4 on a side unless he is at least 125". I am for apr's and I don't shoot most of the bucks that would be legal under a 4pt apr. You guys keep trying to stretch straws do you don't draw the short one. Keep up the good work! Sooner or later you will find something relevant.


What I find relevant is that you and your acquaintances seem to be doing quite well under your self imposed restrictions. So why if you are being successful and I presume somewhat satisfied do you wish to impose restrictions on others when those restriction won't affect you?


----------



## FREEPOP

fanrwing said:


> What I find relevant is that you and your acquaintances seem to be doing quite well under your self imposed restrictions. So why if you are being successful and I presume somewhat satisfied do you wish to impose restrictions on others when those restriction won't affect you?


----------



## cdacker

swampbuck said:


> You should have left out the slash...it was check data + qdm(sponsor group)data + taxidermist data.
> 
> Yup, can't see no bias there...LOL


So... High-grading is a problem in leelanau?


----------



## mbrewer

motdean said:


> Here is one for ya to ponder:
> 
> How about those that are allowed to vote in the next APR survey are forced to hunt how they vote for the next 5 years. In other words, if you vote in favor of APR's, you are forced by law to hunt that way for the next 5 regardless of whether they pass or not.
> 
> I wonder how many votes would not have been cast as "yes" votes in Mi if it wasn't a certainty that their neighbors would be forced into it. (Difficult to enforce, I know, but I bet at least some of the votes would have been switched, I bet...)


Never happen, never should. Why do you want to penalize participation. The penalty is to be treated differently based on a preference.


----------



## motdean

mbrewer said:


> Never happen, never should. Why do you want to penalize participation. The penalty is to be treated differently based on a preference.


Why are they being penalized...They are simply being "forced" to hunt their preference....the same that they want to put on others.


----------



## mbrewer

motdean said:


> Why are they being penalized...They are simply being "forced" to hunt their preference....the same that they want to put on others.


I get it, you want your pound of flesh. Don't hold your breath.


----------



## FREEPOP

mbrewer said:


> Never happen, never should. Why do you want to penalize participation. The penalty is to be treated differently based on a preference.


It would show how committed they really are. We know there's a good sized group that are in the "if I don't shoot it, my neighbor will" club.
It would be interesting to see how large they are as a percentage of the Pro-APR crowd.


----------



## jr28schalm

favorite time of the year.. got 3 property taxes in mail today


----------



## hartman756

cdacker said:


> Leelanau county is working on 12 years of APRs. How many complaints have you heard about high grading?


There have been several on here and other social media of the possibility/complaint of high grading in Leelanau county. And for reference Leelanau county is not that big of an area so even a small number should raise eyebrows.
BTW Not going to spend a bunch of time going back and finding those complaints of high grading on here or other social media so don't ask !!!!!!!!


----------



## 357Maximum

In the end all this arguing is pointless. In the end it is all about numbers. In the end you can make it legal to steal from 51% of the population to give it to the other 49%. In the end you can make it legal for a female to be the only one who has final say in killing a man's child. In the end it's all about numbers. 

In the beginning and middle however, it all depends on figuring out a way to make them numbers look good to the masses that will be ultimately be losing out, and convincing them to go along with your tricks until it's too late to have any hope of stopping it.


----------



## brushbuster

hartman756 said:


> There have been several on here and other social media of the possibility/complaint of high grading in Leelanau county. And for reference Leelanau county is not that big of an area so even a small number should raise eyebrows.
> BTW Not going to spend a bunch of time going back and finding those complaints of high grading on here or other social media so don't ask !!!!!!!!


:lol: Show me your images of Leelanau highgrade bucks and I will show images of bucks with similar characteristics in dmus that don't have APRs


----------



## cdacker

357Maximum said:


> In the end all this arguing is pointless. In the end it is all about numbers. In the end you can make it legal to steal from 51% of the population to give it to the other 49%. In the end you can make it legal for a female to be the only one who has final say in killing a man's child. In the end it's all about numbers.
> 
> In the beginning and middle however, it all depends on figuring out a way to make them numbers look good to the masses that will be ultimately be losing out, and convincing them to go along with your tricks until it's too late to have any hope of stopping it.


Exactly . FWIW, I wouldn't be in favor of APRs if I got to hunt on your "island", either.


----------



## Munsterlndr

brushbuster said:


> :lol: Show me your images of Leelanau highgrade bucks and I will show images of bucks with similar characteristics in dmus that don't have APRs


:lol: Show me your images of NW12 APR bucks and I will show images of bucks with similar characteristics in dmus that don't have APRs.


----------



## Waif

357Maximum said:


> In the end all this arguing is pointless. In the end it is all about numbers. In the end you can make it legal to steal from 51% of the population to give it to the other 49%. In the end you can make it legal for a female to be the only one who has final say in killing a man's child. In the end it's all about numbers.
> 
> In the beginning and middle however, it all depends on figuring out a way to make them numbers look good to the masses that will be ultimately be losing out, and convincing them to go along with your tricks until it's too late to have any hope of stopping it.


Selling you something you are not sure about buying , vs something you are trying to acquire takes a different approach.
If I can confuse you, then create a dependency, I can then offer you choices whether you need or want them.

Or the decision can just be made for you. For your own good and benefit of course. Taxes ,zoning ordinances ect. if you don't know better than to follow the majority.
Never mind if you are in the minority.
Third shift, no beer sales after work,eggs for supper, and be advised there is a noise ordinance for the majorities benefit not your's.
By the way your lawn needs mowing.
.


----------



## brushbuster

Munsterlndr said:


> :lol: Show me your images of NW12 APR bucks and I will show images of bucks with similar characteristics in dmus that don't have APRs.


:lol: I know, right.


----------



## jr28schalm

i would like to see pics of high grade bucks to...i think more or less down swing from poor food or old age ..lol


----------



## Munsterlndr

brushbuster said:


> :lol: I know, right.


So both are just figments of someone's imagination?


----------



## motdean

mbrewer said:


> I get it, you want your pound of flesh. Don't hold your breath.



Oh, I am not holding my breath. I just find it fascinating that they only way some people will sign up for APR's is if others are forced to. The HC areas are living proof of it. 

And as for me, I voluntarily signed up to not shoot anything less than four on a side two years ago if five people supporting APR's hunted state land only....5 people signed up. I passed on bucks that did not meet that measure and took a single doe that year. If you search that thread, it was pretty telling...at least to me.

(Exhale, Dean, exhale.....)


----------



## brushbuster

Munsterlndr said:


> So both are just figments of someone's imagination?


No. Older bucks exist every where, with all kinds of different headgear.


----------



## bioactive

Munsterlndr said:


> So both are just figments of someone's imagination?


Nope they exist in both places. But as I am 100% certain we will see after the seasons's results are tallied, far higher percentages of them will be found in the NW 12 than in non-APR counties in the NLP.

Nobody ever said there were not big deer killed every year in every county. The difference is that APRs increase the chances of every hunter to see or kill one.


----------



## bioactive

motdean said:


> Oh, I am not holding my breath. I just find it fascinating that they only way some people will sign up for APR's is if others are forced to. The HC areas are living proof of it.
> 
> And as for me, I voluntarily signed up to not shoot anything less than four on a side two years ago if five people supporting APR's hunted state land only....5 people signed up. I passed on bucks that did not meet that measure and took a single doe that year. If you search that thread, it was pretty telling...at least to me.
> 
> (Exhale, Dean, exhale.....)


What is your evidence that the 2/3rds of hunters who are in favor of APRs do not themselves practice restraint on yearling bucks?

Or is that just an assumption on your part?


----------



## devilsbuck

sniper said:


> The bottom line is that marp's are coming..The younger generation, economics and science will say so and these 400 plus post will mean absolutely nothing in the long run..Folks that have been conditioned to do the same things for years and years absolutely hate change..As do I..This will be know different than a speed limit change, a tax hike or a electronic device introduced into our daily lives..Not everyone will like the changes, but people will live with them as they ultimately will be for the best....It's a coming..



Yes sir. Either get on board or get out of the way. Like so many things in life no matter how hard you try to stop them they just keep coming and in some cases they come back stronger.


----------



## GDLUCK

farmlegend said:


> One might also consider the prospect that Michigan's traditional deer management culture has "stolen" the ability of hundreds of thousands of men, over a period of a number of decades, to enjoy the experience of hunting a deer herd with a more natural degree of age structure. And it is a different experience than what most of us are used to, with differences even going beyond antlers, believe it or not.


well first off you can't steal something from someone if they never had it. Second if you want a "natural" age structure then you want the closure of deer hunting. If you want a "natural" age structure with hunting then you want what we had before APR.


----------



## dc3shcmanke

These APR threads have been going for a while now, my question is= where are all of the unsatisfied pissed off hunters of the NW13? Seems like there would be guys on here telling us how horrible their hunting is due to APRs? What about the guys putting their properties up for sale due to stupid APRs? Heres a couple more happy customers


----------



## johnhunter

sniper said:


> The bottom line is that marp's are coming..The younger generation, economics and science will say so and these 400 plus post will mean absolutely nothing in the long run.


Ever notice that younger deer hunters, in general, are far more accepting of managing for an older buck age structure, and tactics to accomplish it like MAPRs, than their granddads are?


----------



## FREEPOP

What is "natural"? We've had pretty much the same regs for 100 years. Prior to that the deer were about whiped out. So natural was 200+ years ago? 100? 50? 25? 10?

For it to be natural, it had to exist at one time. When does natural evolve or does it ever?


----------



## jr28schalm

I think young people welcome change


----------



## 357Maximum

cdacker said:


> Respect your opinion, just totally disagree with it. The major players behind the MAPR movement did not intend a regulation to "rob" anyone from anything. Furthermore, they had nothing to gain from APRs.. most of them have great hunting. IMO, it doesn't get much more generous than the amount of time and money they've invested in pushing for a regulation that would potentially allow others, especially state land hunters, to enjoy the quality of hunting they've been (and you have been) fortunate enough to experience. The regulation has been shown to increase the age of bucks harvested while maintaining hunter success rates. Nobody's getting "robbed".
> I like your advise about state land hunting. I have found the same thing several times ... sometimes the further you trek in, the closer you get to where you started.
> I also don't buy that you're over the "antler sickness". There would be no reason to get rid of the "dorks" if you you were.


I disagree with you on almost all accounts. Just the way it is. I respect someone's opinion until they go out of their way to shove it up my arse, Simple fact. Your tactics are the same as some of the animal rights activists out there to my eyes.


I Never said I was cured. I said I was getting over it...maybe. Regardless I have never tried to impose my beliefs onto you and I have never drove from town to town trying to impose my view of scrubs onto others. I am not H.S.U.S or P.E.T.A and I do not think behavior like that is ethical or right. In my opinion you guys would get a lot farther in your goals of not having your neighbors shoot your bucks by educating people instead of trying to MANDATE people...again just my opinion and I have many. 


How's that forcing your will going anyway?

http://www.clarecountyreview.com/news/hunters-up-in-arms-over-proposed-buck-limits/


At this point I am declaring myself to be ANTI- LP DMI and that is my right. Your cause has motivated one man...THANK YOU


----------



## swampbuck

Cdacker,

Can you provide documentation regarding the success rates?

"The regulation has been shown to increase the age of bucks harvested while maintaining hunter success rates. "


----------



## FREEPOP

357Maximum said:


> I disagree with you on almost all accounts. Just the way it is. I respect someone's opinion until they go out of their way to shove it up my arse, Simple fact. Your tactics are the same as some of the animal rights activists out there to my eyes.
> 
> 
> I Never said I was cured. I said I was getting over it...maybe. Regardless I have never tried to impose my beliefs onto you and I have never drove from town to town trying to impose my view of scrubs onto others. I am not H.S.U.S or P.E.T.A and I do not think behavior like that is ethical or right. In my opinion you guys would get a lot farther in your goals of not having your neighbors shoot your bucks by educating people instead of trying to MANDATE people...again just my opinion and I have many.
> 
> 
> How's that forcing your will going anyway?
> 
> http://www.clarecountyreview.com/news/hunters-up-in-arms-over-proposed-buck-limits/
> 
> 
> At this point I am declaring myself to be ANTI- LP DMI and that is my right. Your cause has motivated one man...THANK YOU


I don't believe trying to coerce people into changing their belief and behavior by demeaning them works well either. It's what fueled my fire and from what I see posted here, it was just more than just me.


----------



## johnhunter247

motdean said:


> If that is the case, then why don't voluntary APR's work? Go read the thread about the TB zone whereby even Bio acknowledges that the deer are not getting to age. Even though *most people* supposedly want APR's, *most people* are not passing up the deer. Pass the Kool Aid, there big fella.


Go look at the buck poles on the gun opener and you will see why we need them in place. Look at the average age of a deer killed in Michigan. That's why we need them. Unfortunately we need several restrictions put in place here. Apr's are just one slice of the pie... Michigan is way behind other places on quality management. It is too bad that were taking baby steps. These regs are about ten years behind.


----------



## johnhunter247

FREEPOP said:


>


I totally agree with you. As long as the greedy brown is down guys keep shooting all the young deer we will keep suffering!


----------



## DirtySteve

FREEPOP said:


> I don't believe trying to coerce people into changing their belief and behavior by demeaning them works well either. It's what fueled my fire and from what I see posted here, it was just more than just me.



Personally I like all the debate and different points of view on here. I don't see it as people shoving something down others throats. I think the debate is a good thing in the long run. If things do end up changing I think it is more likely all sides get considered at the time it happens. 

My take on this is I think APR'S are coming. But I think it will be a slow process. I don't see any consideration by NRC to expand further until after the trial period in the 12 counties is done. Maybe some areas get together for local APR's before then.


----------



## FREEPOP

johnhunter247 said:


> I totally agree with you. As long as the greedy brown is down guys keep shooting all the young deer we will keep suffering!


Says the guy that shot a 160+ this year in Michigan. 

Kinda reduces the wind in your sails :lol:


----------



## johnhunter247

fanrwing said:


> What I find relevant is that you and your acquaintances seem to be doing quite well under your self imposed restrictions. So why if you are being successful and I presume somewhat satisfied do you wish to impose restrictions on others when those restriction won't affect you?


The brown is down mentality affects everyone's hunting. The guys doing it are shooting themselves in the foot as far as hunting goes and they don't even realize it. If they got to hunt a well managed area for a season they would change there mind about the whole issue. If you say no your lying... That would be like working a minimum wage job getting a raise to a six figure income for a year and then stepping back down to minimum wage because you didn't like the extra money...


----------



## FREEPOP

DirtySteve said:


> Personally I like all the debate and different points of view on here. I don't see it as people shoving something down others throats. I think the debate is a good thing in the long run. If things do end up changing I think it is more likely all sides get considered at the time it happens.
> .


You like the "milk dripping from their chins" "baby bucks" "learn how to hunt" "Sparky killer" comments?

Then you consider that these same people live in concrete-asphalt and pay people to teach them how to hunt.


----------



## FREEPOP

johnhunter247 said:


> The brown is down mentality affects everyone's hunting. The guys doing it are shooting themselves in the foot as far as hunting goes and they don't even realize it. If they got to hunt a well managed area for a season they would change there mind about the whole issue. If you say no your lying... That would be like working a minimum wage job getting a raise to a six figure income for a year and then stepping back down to minimum wage because you didn't like the extra money...


Didn't go to minimum wage but pretty much cut it in half. I don't have everything I want, but I do have everything I need. I am grateful and couldn't be more happy


----------



## 357Maximum

FREEPOP said:


> I don't believe trying to coerce people into changing their belief and behavior by demeaning them works well either. It's what fueled my fire and from what I see posted here, it was just more than just me.


I agree and there was no demeaning on my part. It was a direct comparison to the tactics used. IMO they are all playing by the same playbook. A bit over the top and a touch rude on my part perhaps, but it is the way I SEE IT. They inspired me to join a new S.M.A.R.T group last night. From this point on it's an all is fair in love and war journey for me. You see until I did some reading here and other places I did not realize how far they were willing to go to get what they want. Now I know, and I am willing to put my money where my mouth is also. They screamed and I finally listened, took me awhile but I hear it clearly now. I AM AWAKE NOW

They can have the NW13. I should have no say there, but trying to push for something where it is not needed just to have a crusade....I draw the line right there and the state recognizes that line...heck they drew it.


----------



## motdean

johnhunter247 said:


> Go look at the buck poles on the gun opener and you will see why we need them in place. Look at the average age of a deer killed in Michigan. That's why we need them. Unfortunately we need several restrictions put in place here. Apr's are just one slice of the pie... Michigan is way behind other places on quality management. It is too bad that were taking baby steps. These regs are about ten years behind.


John, I am not sure that I understand or agree. Of course, trying to keep some civility in the discussion....I see that on average ~60% of those polled are looking to advance the age structure. With so many in favor, I would like to understand your thoughts as to why we would need mandatory APR's, and why in a place where people can decide before they go into the woods (HC zones), why we can't get there with a voluntary approach? Do you suppose that many of the people that are actually in favor of them really can't keep from shooting the younger bucks because their neighbor doesn't have to or won't?

BTW, I've seen a lot really nice deer in areas that don't have mandatory APR's. On November 14th this year, I saw an absolute beast for over an hour and a half in a farm field tending a doe. There was also a smaller 4 or 6 point trying to cut in for the dance. Honestly, it was the high point of my season. People talk about the intensity of the rut increasing with APR's....It was in the farm fields of mid-Michigan...No APR's to speak of.

Would be interested to hear your thoughts on why voluntary APR's won't/don't work, especially in light of Sniper's comments about so many wanting them.....



sniper said:


> The bottom line is that marp's are coming..The younger generation, economics and science will say so and these 500 plus post will mean absolutely nothing in the long run..Folks that have been conditioned to do the same things for years and years absolutely hate change..As do I..This will be no different than a speed limit change, a tax hike or a electronic device introduced into our daily lives..Not everyone will like the changes, but people will live with them as they ultimately will be for the best....It's a coming..


I also wonder if that hopey changey thing that Sniper is leaning towards is an indication of how he voted in the last presidential election.....if he was old enough.


----------



## FREEPOP

357Maximum said:


> I agree and there was no demeaning on my part. It was a direct comparison to the tactics used. IMO they are all playing by the same playbook. A bit over the top and a touch rude on my part perhaps, but it is the way I SEE IT. They inspired me to join a new S.M.A.R.T group last night. From this point on it's an all is fair in love and war journey for me. You see until I did some reading here and other places I did not realize how far they were willing to go to get what they want. Now I know, and I am willing to put my money where my mouth is also. They screamed and I finally listened, took me awhile but I hear it clearly now. I AM AWAKE NOW


I saw nothing demeaning in your post. 
I believe you and I see eye to eye.


----------



## 357Maximum

FREEPOP said:


> I saw nothing demeaning in your post.
> I believe you and I see eye to eye.



Gotcha. Slightly ashamed of how loudly they had to yell to wake me up though. 

The tactics being used by LP DMI are tactics we should all recognize as they have been used to attack us gun owners/hunters as a whole for a long time. I think they opened a backdoor that will hurt us all in the end. I intend to help close that door from here on out. I AM AWAKE NOW


----------



## dc3shcmanke

motdean said:


> John, I am not sure that I understand or agree. Of course, trying to keep some civility in the discussion....I see that on average ~60% of those polled are looking to advance the age structure. With so many in favor, I would like to understand your thoughts as to why we would need mandatory APR's, and why in a place where people can decide before they go into the woods (HC zones), why we can't get there with a voluntary approach? Do you suppose that many of the people that are actually in favor of them really can't keep from shooting the younger bucks because their neighbor doesn't have to or won't?
> 
> BTW, I've seen a lot really nice deer in areas that don't have mandatory APR's. On November 14th this year, I saw an absolute beast for over an hour and a half in a farm field tending a doe. There was also a smaller 4 or 6 point trying to cut in for the dance. Honestly, it was the high point of my season. People talk about the intensity of the rut increasing with APR's....It was in the farm fields of mid-Michigan...No APR's to speak of.
> 
> Would be interested to hear your thoughts on why voluntary APR's won't/don't work, especially in light of Sniper's comments about so many wanting them.....
> 
> 
> 
> I also wonder if that hopey changey thing that Sniper is leaning towards is an indication of how he voted in the last presidential election.....if he was old enough.


Voluntary APRs work EXCELLENT. Im blessed to be in an area where neighbors pass on small bucks. I know alot of guys who are not as lucky as i am, they are surrounded by brown its down hunters. Now we have the youth on board, time for a change.


----------



## Hillsdales Most Wanted

dc3shcmanke said:


> Voluntary APRs work EXCELLENT. Im blessed to be in an area where neighbors pass on small bucks. I know alot of guys who are not as lucky as i am, they are surrounded by brown its down hunters. Now we have the youth on board, time for a change.
> View attachment 198238


With all this talk of social media i had to join this facebook thing just to check it out. Cant believe the amount of people supporting mapr's (especially the young crowd). AWESOME!!!!


----------



## beer and nuts

> Go look at the buck poles on the gun opener and you will see why we need them in place. Look at the average age of a deer killed in Michigan. That's why we need them. Unfortunately we need several restrictions put in place here. Apr's are just one slice of the pie... Michigan is way behind other places on quality management. It is too bad that were taking baby steps. These regs are about ten years behind.


 You have educated yourself right, with the stats from other states about 1.5 year olds being shot compared to Mi. and the percentages!? Other states have very few regs as far as quality management. Ohio, Ind(one buck rule, if that counts), Illinois, WI, Missouri(close to as much as MI, but their licenses are something else on what residents get compared to MI), Iowa, Minnesota...all have the same or less quality management regulations COMPAREED to Mi. Compare most of those states(outlier is Iowa) to MI on 1.5 year olds in the harvest and its really not that bad.

I have seen the buck poles, downstate, Marion, etc...I see a lot fo 2.5 year olds plus! Roscommon was half of the 24 hung, were 1.5 year year olds.


----------



## beer and nuts

> With all this talk of social media i had to join this facebook thing just to check it out. Cant believe the amount of people supporting mapr's (especially the young crowd). AWESOME!


 You really need to join the democratic/liberal marketing machine!! So Hillsdale when did you join Facebook??


----------



## Hillsdales Most Wanted

beer and nuts said:


> You really need to join the democratic/liberal marketing machine!! So Hillsdale when did you join Facebook??


Dont know the exact date but i joined mid oct. Had to check out the Let em go& let them grow site. U should check it out, lots of good people on there. They like to talk about habitat also!!


----------



## bioactive

motdean said:


> John, I am not sure that I understand or agree. Of course, trying to keep some civility in the discussion....I see that on average ~60% of those polled are looking to advance the age structure. With so many in favor, I would like to understand your thoughts as to why we would need mandatory APR's, and why in a place where people can decide before they go into the woods (HC zones), why we can't get there with a voluntary approach? Do you suppose that many of the people that are actually in favor of them really can't keep from shooting the younger bucks because their neighbor doesn't have to or won't?
> 
> BTW, I've seen a lot really nice deer in areas that don't have mandatory APR's. On November 14th this year, I saw an absolute beast for over an hour and a half in a farm field tending a doe. There was also a smaller 4 or 6 point trying to cut in for the dance. Honestly, it was the high point of my season. People talk about the intensity of the rut increasing with APR's....It was in the farm fields of mid-Michigan...No APR's to speak of.
> 
> Would be interested to hear your thoughts on why voluntary APR's won't/don't work, especially in light of Sniper's comments about so many wanting them.....
> 
> 
> 
> I also wonder if that hopey changey thing that Sniper is leaning towards is an indication of how he voted in the last presidential election.....if he was old enough.


Mot you really don't get that I can be in favor of a 55 mile an hour speed limit on the freeway while still continuing to drive with the traffic while the regulation says 70?

As far as the 60-40 split goes, well, working with those numbers, we know that only about 30% of hunters even get a buck each year. So if 60% of hunters are passing (theoretically), well then that just greatly increases the odds that the remaining 40% are going to get their antlers (antler fetish is what drives the 
Sparky killing). If you don't get that, well then I am confused because I always thought you were pretty smart and level headed.

The regulation is not aimed at those who want it, it is aimed at those who don't. They happen to be in the minority in our state but they greatly impact the outcome of the majority. 

I am in favor of laws against shoplifting, not because I am going to shoplift...but because a minority of greedy people are going to shoplift, which costs me money in the end as the cost is passed down to the consumers who do not shoplift.

Voluntary regulations cannot work with deer on a statewide level any more than they can work with bass or walleye fishing. If we did not have the 14 inch limit on bass I would still be releasing all bass caught while a minority of fishermen would be filling their livewells with 12 inchers. 

This concept of the majority of citizens being in favor of regulations that inhibit the overuse of resources by the self-serving and greedy permeates every aspect of our society within and outside the hunting community. 

When I first hunted in Michigan under the one buck rule, every single person I knew shot the first deer with antlers they saw. Antler fanaticism was the absolute rule of the day, and still continues in our culture today in too high a portion of the hunting population. We have infinitely more deer knowledge in the hunting community today than we had in those days. At this point, most hunters want to have a better quality experience and unfortunately, on a region or state wide level it is necessary to regulate the behavior of those who would deplete our resource. 

APRs, while not ideal, limit the antler fanatics effectively and improve the age structure of the buck populations where they have been applied in Michigan. As long as they work, and most hunters are in favor of them, what's your beef? A philosophical one? I.e. we can't all hold hands and live in peace? No need for traffic regulations or zoning laws or fishing regulations--everybody just agree to not be greedy? It does not work here in the state of "gotta get your buck (antlers)".


----------



## cdacker

swampbuck said:


> Cdacker,
> 
> Can you provide documentation regarding the success rates?
> 
> "The regulation has been shown to increase the age of bucks harvested while maintaining hunter success rates. "


just from one of the counties in the NW13 ....


----------



## cdacker

357Maximum said:


> I disagree with you on almost all accounts. Just the way it is. I respect someone's opinion until they go out of their way to shove it up my arse, Simple fact. *Your tactics are the same as some of the animal rights activists out there to my eyes.*
> I Never said I was cured. I said I was getting over it...maybe. Regardless I have never tried to impose my beliefs onto you and I have never drove from town to town trying to impose my view of scrubs onto others. I am not H.S.U.S or P.E.T.A and I do not think behavior like that is ethical or right. In my opinion you guys would get a lot farther in your goals of not having your neighbors shoot your bucks by educating people instead of trying to MANDATE people...again just my opinion and I have many.
> How's that forcing your will going anyway?
> http://www.clarecountyreview.com/news/hunters-up-in-arms-over-proposed-buck-limits/
> At this point I am declaring myself to be ANTI- LP DMI and that is my right. Your cause has motivated one man...THANK YOU


my tactics? the "tactic" of disagreeing with you? Interesting. 
Happy to get you motivated .... going to be a tough battle for you considering you are in the minority.


----------



## cdacker

dc3shcmanke said:


> These APR threads have been going for a while now, my question is= where are all of the unsatisfied pissed off hunters of the NW13? Seems like there would be guys on here telling us how horrible their hunting is due to APRs? What about the guys putting their properties up for sale due to stupid APRs? Heres a couple more happy customers
> View attachment 198199
> View attachment 198198


High grading!


----------



## pescadero

bioactive said:


> This concept of the majority of citizens being in favor of regulations that inhibit the overuse of resources by the self-serving and greedy permeates every aspect of our society within and outside the hunting community.


So you'd be willing to put the APR regulations up to a statewide vote of all citizens, and then we go with what the majority of state citizens vote for?

I'd go for that... but I don't think most hunters would like the results, and I'm almost certain the APR guys would HATE the results.


----------



## 357Maximum

Put it up as a real survey with a real and point blank question. AT POINT OF SALE WHEN YOU BUY A DEER LICENSE FOR EVERONE THAT BUYS ONE. no unseen "random" samples and let the chips fall where they may. I AM GAME


----------



## willy05

Im chiming in after reading only a handful of this post, but is the 60% for and the 40% agai st that are referenced from the poll the DNR sent out to a small percent of hnters two years ago. If it is, i didnt even know one person who got one and i talk to many people. The pole numbers are sketchy at best, a very small percentage of hunters got an Apr sheet or poll from the DNR a couple years ago. You could have it 60 40 the other way if you sent the DNR survey to the hunters that did t get one. I am fortunate that within a 3 mile area around me the other land owners are passing a majority of young bucks.


----------



## 357Maximum

cdacker said:


> my tactics? the "tactic" of disagreeing with you? Interesting.
> Happy to get you motivated .... going to be a tough battle for you considering you are in the minority.


I am a WHITE MALE THAT HAS ALWAYS PAID HIS OWN WAY. THAT MINORITY?

If every deer hunter had a say instead of random sample I would not be in the minority. There is statistics and then there is God Damned lies...we all know it.


----------



## brushbuster

dc3shcmanke said:


> These APR threads have been going for a while now, my question is= where are all of the unsatisfied pissed off hunters of the NW13? Seems like there would be guys on here telling us how horrible their hunting is due to APRs? What about the guys putting their properties up for sale due to stupid APRs? Heres a couple more happy customers
> View attachment 198199
> View attachment 198198





357Maximum said:


> Put it up as a real survey with a real and point blank question. AT POINT OF SALE WHEN YOU BUY A DEER LICENSE FOR EVERONE THAT BUYS ONE. no unseen "random" samples and let the chips fall where they may. I AM GAME


As long as they make it a simple majority and make it cheat proof I am down with that.


----------



## Waif

357Maximum said:


> Gotcha. Slightly ashamed of how loudly they had to yell to wake me up though.
> 
> The tactics being used by LP DMI are tactics we should all recognize as they have been used to attack us gun owners/hunters as a whole for a long time. I think they opened a backdoor that will hurt us all in the end. I intend to help close that door from here on out. I AM AWAKE NOW


But..but..but..it's mutual philanthropy for the good of all.
Unlike not killing older deer for the sake of having older deer for all to experience the thrill of seeing, even on the mythical Eden of public land..
You must control your neighbor and the guys all points on opposite ends of the state or they will ruin your hobby of killing trophy bucks! Your only option will be to locate and hunt them away from your warm bed and private backyard.
It is a very real travesty of nondiscrimination when any one kills an immature deer and hunting has degenerated into killing deer only because they are deer for crying out loud.
Why does that not concern you and the future of hunting and this states reputation?.
C'mon man,get on board.


----------



## 357Maximum

willy05 said:


> Im chiming in after reading only a handful of this post, but is the 60% for and the 40% agai st that are referenced from the poll the DNR sent out to a small percent of hnters two years ago. If it is, i didnt even know one person who got one and i talk to many people. The pole numbers are sketchy at best, a very small percentage of hunters got an Apr sheet or poll from the DNR a couple years ago.  You could have it 60 40 the other way if you sent the DNR survey to the hunters that did t get one. I am fortunate that within a 3 mile area around me the other land owners are passing a majority of young bucks.



I do not know anyone who's ever received a DNR survey of any kind. I know some that have requested them though..IGNORED

WEIRD, just plain weird.


----------



## 357Maximum

brushbuster said:


> As long as they make it a simple majority and make it cheat proof I am down with that.



We finally agree 110% BRING IT


----------



## 357Maximum

Waif said:


> But..but..but..it's mutual philanthropy for the good of all.
> Unlike not killing older deer for the sake of having older deer for all to experience the thrill of seeing, even on the mythical Eden of public land..
> You must control your neighbor and the guys all points on opposite ends of the state or they will ruin your hobby of killing trophy bucks! Your only option will be to locate and hunt them away from your warm bed and private backyard.
> It is a very real travesty of nondiscrimination when any one kills an immature deer and hunting has degenerated into killing deer only because they are deer for crying out loud.
> Why does that not concern you and the future of hunting and this states reputation?.
> C'mon man,get on board.



At this point I would be willing to go for genetic modifications for NO antler production on male deer. Life would be grand, yes it would. 


Socialism is alive and well, and it pains me to no end.


----------



## motdean

bioactive said:


> Mot you really don't get that I can be in favor of a 55 mile an hour speed limit on the freeway while still continuing to drive with the traffic while the regulation says 70?
> 
> As far as the 60-40 split goes, well, working with those numbers, we know that only about 30% of hunters even get a buck each year. So if 60% of hunters are passing (theoretically), well then that just greatly increases the odds that the remaining 40% are going to get their antlers (antler fetish is what drives the
> Sparky killing). If you don't get that, well then I am confused because I always thought you were pretty smart and level headed.
> 
> The regulation is not aimed at those who want it, it is aimed at those who don't. They happen to be in the minority in our state but they greatly impact the outcome of the majority.
> 
> I am in favor of laws against shoplifting, not because I am going to shoplift...but because a minority of greedy people are going to shoplift, which costs me money in the end as the cost is passed down to the consumers who do not shoplift.
> 
> Voluntary regulations cannot work with deer on a statewide level any more than they can work with bass or walleye fishing. If we did not have the 14 inch limit on bass I would still be releasing all bass caught while a minority of fishermen would be filling their livewells with 12 inchers.
> 
> This concept of the majority of citizens being in favor of regulations that inhibit the overuse of resources by the self-serving and greedy permeates every aspect of our society within and outside the hunting community.
> 
> When I first hunted in Michigan under the one buck rule, every single person I knew shot the first deer with antlers they saw. Antler fanaticism was the absolute rule of the day, and still continues in our culture today in too high a portion of the hunting population. We have infinitely more deer knowledge in the hunting community today than we had in those days. At this point, most hunters want to have a better quality experience and unfortunately, on a region or state wide level it is necessary to regulate the behavior of those who would deplete our resource.
> 
> APRs, while not ideal, limit the antler fanatics effectively and improve the age structure of the buck populations where they have been applied in Michigan. As long as they work, and most hunters are in favor of them, what's your beef? A philosophical one? I.e. we can't all hold hands and live in peace? No need for traffic regulations or zoning laws or fishing regulations--everybody just agree to not be greedy? It does not work here in the state of "gotta get your buck (antlers)".



Jim,
Thanks, I think. While there is a lot to digest, I have to go back to what I have observed from video's that you post of your bucks, sightings, as well as your neighbors'. 

My hang up is more of the Voluntary vs. Mandatory side. 

To me, you have an almost ideal set-up. From what I understand, you don't operate in an area that most would consider MAPR country...other than the 3" rule. *What do you suppose you can attribute to that success, and why won't that work statewide?*

I would also be interested (perhaps the start of another thread) of the things that are working really well for your co-op as well as the things that you would like to see improved. I would sincerely be interested in seeing that...but am afraid that it would digress into another Mapr debate.

Let me pose a challenge to you if antlers are not so important to you, let's both agree not to shoot bucks in 2016. No matter how big or small they are....By the way, if you take me up on the challenge, I will trust you, but will send you photo's of my unused tags in 2016...as I will still buy them.


----------



## Waif

357Maximum said:


> At this point I would be willing to go for genetic modifications for NO antler production on male deer. Life would be grand, yes it would.
> 
> 
> Socialism is alive and well, and it pains me to no end.


Just have deer season (all weapons combined) the four weeks during the month of March.


----------



## bioactive

357Maximum said:


> I do not know anyone who's ever received a DNR survey of any kind. I know some that have requested them though..IGNORED
> 
> WEIRD, just plain weird.


There is nothing weird about it at all.

About 1 in 13 deer hunters are surveyed by mail each year. 

A 1 in 13 chance means the odds of you not getting one in 26 years is roughly the same as the odds of flipping heads twice in a row. It is not surprising at all that you have never gotten one. I have gotten 2 over my many years of hunting. And that happened, by completely random chance, 2 years in a row. But if I never got one, that would not be weird or odd or surprising at all to me, since I had Jr. High School level math. 

If the DNR responded to your friend and sent him a survey because he requested one, that would constitute a flawed process. The only reason the survey is valid is because you get selected by random chance, not because you ask to be part of it.


----------



## 357Maximum

Waif said:


> Just have deer season (all weapons combined) the four weeks during the month of March.


Make it February and you got a deal. Wife killed a little buck in March a few years ago with her car. The dogs ate it, as it tasted like a bale of fresh hay.


----------



## dc3shcmanke

357Maximum said:


> We finally agree 110% BRING IT


Uuummmm???? Its already been brought. Hard to argue atleast 60% would vote MAPR's


----------



## 357Maximum

dc3shcmanke said:


> Uuummmm???? Its already been brought. Hard to argue atleast 60% would vote MAPR's
> View attachment 198253



Believe it or not, but most deer hunters do not actively have an electronic device glued to them. I stand by what I said. Make it EVEBODY at point of sale and BRING IT

You want mob rule, let's make it a true mob, not just the guys that live to deer hunt or have internet access. A ton of people do not have internet as it violates their beliefs/religion ya know.


----------



## FREEPOP

bioactive said:


> There is nothing weird about it at all.
> 
> About 1 in 13 deer hunters are surveyed by mail each year.
> 
> A 1 in 13 chance means the odds of you not getting one in 26 years is roughly the same as the odds of flipping heads twice in a row. It is not surprising at all that you have never gotten one. I have gotten 2 over my many years of hunting. And that happened, by completely random chance, 2 years in a row. But if I never got one, that would not be weird or odd or surprising at all to me, since I had Jr. High School level math.
> 
> If the DNR responded to your friend and sent him a survey because he requested one, that would constitute a flawed process. The only reason the survey is valid is because you get selected by random chance, not because you ask to be part of it.


Good stuff. Now please explain voluntary bias.


----------



## pescadero

brushbuster said:


> As long as they make it a simple majority and make it cheat proof I am down with that.


Simple majority is fine for me - as long as it's a _*vote*_ of _*all citizens.
*_
As long we don't do it by survey, or limit it to hunters - a simple majority is cool with me.


----------



## dc3shcmanke

pescadero said:


> Simple majority is fine for me - as long as it's a _*vote*_ of _*all citizens.
> *_
> As long we don't do it by survey, or limit it to hunters - a simple majority is cool with me.


Heck yeah !!! All the non-hunters would vote for bambi to live longer!!!


----------



## bioactive

motdean said:


> Jim,
> Thanks, I think. While there is a lot to digest, I have to go back to what I have observed from video's that you post of your bucks, sightings, as well as your neighbors'.
> 
> My hang up is more of the Voluntary vs. Mandatory side.
> 
> To me, you have an almost ideal set-up. From what I understand, you don't operate in an area that most would consider MAPR country...other than the 3" rule. *What do you suppose you can attribute to that success, and why won't that work statewide?*
> 
> I would also be interested (perhaps the start of another thread) of the things that are working really well for your co-op as well as the things that you would like to see improved. I would sincerely be interested in seeing that...but am afraid that it would digress into another Mapr debate.
> 
> Let me pose a challenge to you if antlers are not so important to you, let's both agree not to shoot bucks in 2016. No matter how big or small they are....By the way, if you take me up on the challenge, I will trust you, but will send you photo's of my unused tags in 2016...as I will still buy them.


Sorry mot. I have no interest in side bets or side agreements. I intend to shoot the top 10% of what I think is available to me on my two properties. Last year, that was a 3.5 in Hillsdale County and a 4.5 in Lenawee County. This year it was a 3.5 in both places. Me not shooting a buck proves nothing. 

My co-op on my 47 acres is so unique and rare that it cannot be used in any way as a posterboy for statewide voluntary APRs. 

First of all, we don't use APRs at all. Our main target buck in 2013 was a 6 pointer who had smaller antlers than several other bucks in the area. It was his age and uniqueness that made him special. He was finally shot in 2014, by which time he was a 262 lb. 8 point, and he was the number one trophy taken in our co-op, without question, even though I shot a buck with almost 20 inches more antler. But my buck was 20 lbs. lighter and probably 2 years younger, so by my standards, my neighbor Luke is the one who hit the jackpot by killing the Big 6. 

Second, the core area comprises 6 adjacent landowners, comprising 380 acres, all of whom are using age as a criterion. 

Third, a buck can walk 1.6 miles without going off one of three core properties and be in extremely heavy cover without seeing a house or road the entire distance. He grew up in that swamp not knowing he was hunted on these three properties, and without being shot at anywhere, any time in that territory.

So please, do not use my unique circumstances to argue for voluntary state or region wide regulations. In fact, you can use it to argue the opposite. The chances of all the right stuff coming together like that is so unusual that it argues the case that regulations are needed because voluntary cannot work on a wide geographic basis. *Especially true when you consider that, even under these unique circumstances, we have not yet identified an adult buck in the area with numerous cameras up since summer and numerous hunts under our belt.

May I repeat that, in red? We have not yet identified an adult buck in the area with numerous cameras up since summer and numerous hunts under our belt.*

*The lack of trigger restraint on hundreds of acres surrounding our little co-op are sufficient to ensure that it is the rare buck that will make it to adulthood. 
*
Am I complaining? Nope, just explaining. I think a statewide APR would increase the quality of the hunting experience for most hunters, especially those who hunt on public ground. 

I really do believe that.


----------



## Corey K

This is our biggest problem in Michigan, we just simply have too many people that are passionate about Deer Hunting! Seriously, we have a lot of very good hunters and unfortunately some of our good hunters are also greedy...No matter what rules they lay out for us, most will be broken (nothing is cheatproof). I favor anything that goes county by county, not statewide. I would favor 1 buck limits in certain counties, restrictions on doe tags for private land (how many private land doe tags get used on other properties and state land is mind blowing...) ...Michigan is a big state, some times I feel that Marp's are unfair to public land hunters with little time to hunt.


----------



## brushbuster

pescadero said:


> Simple majority is fine for me - as long as it's a _*vote*_ of _*all citizens.
> *_
> As long we don't do it by survey, or limit it to hunters - a simple majority is cool with me.


What would be the benefit to have all citezens. An APR rule or a non APR rule wont affect anyone but hunters.


----------



## FREEPOP

bioactive said:


> *May I repeat that, in red? We have not yet identified an adult buck in the area with numerous cameras up since summer and numerous hunts under our belt.*
> .


Yet you had to shoot a buck this year. Where's your........(I'll put that in red, not magenta)..........your trigger restraint?


----------



## 357Maximum

Corey K said:


> This is our biggest problem in Michigan, we just simply have too many people that are passionate about Deer Hunting! Seriously, we have a lot of very good hunters and unfortunately some of our good hunters are also greedy...No matter what rules they lay out for us, most will be broken (nothing is cheatproof). I favor anything that goes county by county, not statewide. I would favor 1 buck limits in certain counties, restrictions on doe tags for private land (how many private land doe tags get used on other properties and state land is mind blowing...) ...Michigan is a big state, some times I feel that Marp's are unfair to public land hunters with little time to hunt.



It's not just state land hunters. The first 3 years I owned my island I only had time to hunt it once or twice for an evening hunt. Some people just do not understand that not everybody lives in a tree I guess. The first 3 years I owned my place my B.I.L was in heaven while I lived out of a suitcase. He more than paid for his stand time with many a tree holes dug however.


----------



## pescadero

brushbuster said:


> What would be the benefit to have all citezens. An APR rule or a non APR rule wont affect anyone but hunters.


The deer are the property of all the citizens of Michigan. Prior to take - that deer belongs as much to the a.ti-hunting tree hugger as it does to a hunter as it does to my Grandmother.

All game regulations effect population, dispersal, etc. 

All citizens pay for the DNR through the general fund, all citizens are effected by car deer accidents, all citizens are effected by higher food prices caused by crop damage, all citizens (and the public land they own) are effected by overbrowsing....

An APR or non-APR rule (like any other game regulation) will affect ALL citizens of the state.


----------



## dc3shcmanke

Corey K said:


> This is our biggest problem in Michigan, we just simply have too many people that are passionate about Deer Hunting! Seriously, we have a lot of very good hunters and unfortunately some of our good hunters are also greedy...No matter what rules they lay out for us, most will be broken (nothing is cheatproof). I favor anything that goes county by county, not statewide. I would favor 1 buck limits in certain counties, restrictions on doe tags for private land (how many private land doe tags get used on other properties and state land is mind blowing...) ...Michigan is a big state, some times I feel that Marp's are unfair to public land hunters with little time to hunt.


Ok if u think its not fair to the public land hunter with zero time, is MAPR's fair for the person who invests thousands upon thousands of dollars into hunting property ?


----------



## brushbuster

357Maximum said:


> We finally agree 110% BRING IT


I'll follow whatever process the managers put in place I got no problem with it either way. I do think 66% is a bit much though. You got a few years yet get the process changed sleepy eyed giant.lol


----------



## Pinefarm2015

If protecting some more young bucks with APR's was put on the 2016 ballot for a vote, I suspect it'd pass 90-10%, as opposed to being able to kill any buck 3" and up. Remember, deer hunters only make up some 6-8% of residents.


----------



## brushbuster

pescadero said:


> The deer are the property of all the citizens of Michigan. Prior to take - that deer belongs as much to the a.ti-hunting tree hugger as it does to a hunter as it does to my Grandmother.
> 
> All game regulations effect population, dispersal, etc.
> 
> All citizens pay for the DNR through the general fund, all citizens are effected by car deer accidents, all citizens are effected by higher food prices caused by crop damage, all citizens (and the public land they own) are effected by overbrowsing....
> 
> An APR or non-APR rule (like any other game regulation) will affect ALL citizens of the state.


Thank you for the reply


----------



## FREEPOP

pescadero said:


> The deer are the property of all the citizens of Michigan. Prior to take - that deer belongs as much to the a.ti-hunting tree hugger as it does to a hunter as it does to my Grandmother.
> 
> All game regulations effect population, dispersal, etc.
> 
> All citizens pay for the DNR through the general fund, all citizens are effected by car deer accidents, all citizens are effected by higher food prices caused by crop damage, all citizens (and the public land they own) are effected by overbrowsing....
> 
> An APR or non-APR rule (like any other game regulation) will affect ALL citizens of the state.


I very much agree and have tried to explain it before.


----------



## 357Maximum

brushbuster said:


> I'll follow whatever process the managers put in place I got no problem with it either way. I do think 66% is a bit much though. You got a few years yet get the process changed sleepy eyed giant.lol



Funny... HA

That's one thing that's nice right here where I live. You only have to tell one of the "ish" or "ites" and 2 days later they all know. Just do not ever make them mad....then they is all mad. Kinda like sticking a stick into an anthill....all hands on deck.


----------



## 357Maximum

Pinefarm2015 said:


> If protecting some more young bucks with APR's was put on the 2016 ballot for a vote, I suspect it'd pass 90-10%, as opposed to being able to kill any buck 3" and up. Remember, deer hunters only make up some 6-8% of residents.



That's the slippery slope, back door thing that you just described much more elegantly that I did. THANK YOU


Imagine what an anti thinks everytime they see a buckpole on the news with the trophy hunting banner plastered somewhere in the shot of the camera.


----------



## 357Maximum

devilsbuck said:


> As an opponent to APRs I suggest you take the higher road and quit the immature banter of comparing APR groups/supporters as anti hunters.
> Yes that type of behavior should be wiped from both sides. Its better to debate with facts than insults or silly pictures.
> Grown men acting like a bunch of first graders is really pathetic.



I am not an APR opponent. I am a SLP MANDATORY MAPR opponent. I have no say in the NW13, I do not hunt there, most likely never will. It is the current crusade to spread the MANDATORY REGS EVERYWHERE that I have issue with. And yes the tactics used are exactly the same as the animal rights people use.....same exact playbook of tactics in fact. Use your clout and money to spread your personal desires onto everyone...just ain't right. 

I see 1 buck in 20 that would not be legal with a 4pt MAPR at 1.5 here, what purpose would it serve here? why should I support something that MAY prevent a newbee from enjoying the sport I enjoy to save a 5% buck? I should support robbing a newbee or the guy that wants to shoot a buck where no does can be killed, or the ladder like experience that got me to where I am ...for why exactly? 


I simply do not get the crusade when it will serve no purpose, especially when education/sharing ideas is already working.


----------



## sniper

swampbuck said:


> If any animal is way smarter than you, then you have a problem that no regulation will solve.


If their not smarter than you, than I'm sure you've had to reinforce your drywall to hang all the numerous 160 inch bucks you shot over the years eh??...Maybe I should have worded them as the ultimate survivors...A true mature whitetail buck beats you 9 out 10 times....Their smarter than you!...That's why he's mature..


----------



## johnhunter247

I see 1 buck in 20 that would not be legal with a 4pt MAPR at 1.5 here, what purpose would it serve here? why should I support something that MAY prevent a newbee from enjoying the sport I enjoy to save a 5% buck? I should support robbing a newbee or the guy that wants to shoot a buck where no does can be killed, or the ladder like experience that got me to where I am ...for why exactly?


I simply do not get the crusade when it will serve no purpose, especially when education/sharing ideas is already working.[/QUOTE]
If one in twenty young bucks you see will be legal under apr's your newbie shouldn't have an issue. If he does you should teach him how to hunt since you see that many! Good luck to the newbie!


----------



## 357Maximum

johnhunter247 said:


> I see 1 buck in 20 that would not be legal with a 4pt MAPR at 1.5 here, what purpose would it serve here? why should I support something that MAY prevent a newbee from enjoying the sport I enjoy to save a 5% buck? I should support robbing a newbee or the guy that wants to shoot a buck where no does can be killed, or the ladder like experience that got me to where I am ...for why exactly?
> 
> 
> I simply do not get the crusade when it will serve no purpose, especially when education/sharing ideas is already working.


If one in twenty young bucks you see will be legal under apr's your newbie shouldn't have an issue. If he does you should teach him how to hunt since you see that many! Good luck to the newbie![/QUOTE]


You have your number backwards, other than that we are back to genetics argument again. Your side disagrees with the genetics issue and I know the argument coming next, so I am going to go get some 8 point goulash to eat. Real world genetics is an easier sale to hog/beef/dairy farmers than it is to those that only have "theory" to yak about I guess. I assure you that in actual practice the " smoke the scrub" system works. I see the results of that along with a smaller healthier herd every year. Does not mean am going to try to try to shove that system down everybody's throat or up their rear for "their own good" however.


----------



## sniper

mbrewer said:


> Speaking only for myself, I can confidently say that I'm old enough to understand that a deer, smarter than me, hasn't been born. Ever.
> 
> Sometimes I envy the naivete that gets passed off as intelligence and understanding around here. Not because I admire it though, simply because I can remember the days when I too thought I had the world by the nads and could bend it to my will.
> 
> Happy hunting to you and yours.


Again, if a mature whitetail buck is not smarter than you, I wanna know directions to the Mbrewer Whitetail Hall of Fame Museum?...Man there must be some dandy's hanging in there!....


----------



## devilsbuck

357Maximum said:


> I see 1 buck in 20 that would not be legal with a 4pt MAPR at 1.5 here, what purpose would it serve here? why should I support something that MAY prevent a newbee from enjoying the sport I enjoy to save a 5% buck? I should support robbing a newbee or the guy that wants to shoot a buck where no does can be killed, or the ladder like experience that got me to where I am ...for why exactly?
> 
> 
> I simply do not get the crusade when it will serve no purpose, especially when education/sharing ideas is already working.



Well then. Looks like the newbie will have 19 out of 20 bucks to choose from. Not bad.
If you think it will serve no purpose and that it will only restrict 5% of the buck population then why are you so against it?

Here is what I believe.

I don't believe hunters who say they don't want to impose their standards on others as being genuine in what they claim their standards to be when they fight so vigorously against things such as APR's. 
In my experience the past 15 years of dealing with deer management from both the state level and local level hunters who really feel that way keep quiet, mind their own business and follow the regulations set forth by the government agencies, even when they don't really agree with them because they never needed any help from deer managers to achieve their goals.


----------



## devilsbuck

sniper said:


> Again, if a mature whitetail buck is not smarter than you, I wanna know directions to the Mbrewer Whitetail Hall of Fame Museum?...Man there must be some dandy's hanging in there!....


Sniper I think you should of said a mature buck is harder to kill than any other deer. Its obvious humans are by far more intelligent than a deer, yet a few people in this thread weren't intelligent enough to pick up on that, or so they appear that way.


----------



## GDLUCK

Ranger Ray said:


> Game management should not be by the vote of any group. It should be by science and the principles of law that govern it.


Been thinking that myself. weren't tere some bills passed to ensure the dnr managed by "science" and not the whims of public vote? If you want voting lets vote. worked out well with doves and wolves 

all these years of brown and down only 1.5 year old bucks was apparently bad for the heard. I mean we only had 2+ million.

i do agree and think that in many areas they were overpopulated and needed thinning but if they were "unhealthy" it was only due to population. not age structure.


----------



## devilsbuck

357Maximum said:


> Your side disagrees with the genetics issue.


If you mean genetics as in scrub bucks/cull bucks in a free range herd I assume you mean biologist as our side.


----------



## johnhunter247

357Maximum said:


> If one in twenty young bucks you see will be legal under apr's your newbie shouldn't have an issue. If he does you should teach him how to hunt since you see that many! Good luck to the newbie!



You have your number backwards, other than that we are back to genetics argument again. Your side disagrees with the genetics issue and I know the argument coming next, so I am going to go get some 8 point goulash to eat. Real world genetics is an easier sale to hog/beef/dairy farmers than it is to those that only have "theory" to yak about I guess. I assure you that in actual practice the " smoke the scrub" system works. I see the results of that along with a smaller healthier herd every year. Does not mean am going to try to try to shove that system down everybody's throat or up their rear for "their own good" however.[/QUOTE]
I don't have it backwards. I typed it wrong. Sorry. I meant 1 in twenty deer you see wouldn't be legal so your newbie shouldn't have an issue to harvest a deer. If he can't see one of the 19 out of twenty then you need to teach him how to hunt seeing how you see so many.


----------



## RMH

sniper said:


> Again, if a mature whitetail buck is not smarter than you, I wanna know directions to the Mbrewer Whitetail Hall of Fame Museum?...Man there must be some dandy's hanging in there!....


You must being referring to the overflow of the bucks FL has been tutoring, the rest of the deer in the state are not smarter than humans......


----------



## devilsbuck

GDLUCK said:


> Been thinking that myself. weren't tere some bills passed to ensure the dnr managed by "science" and not the whims of public vote? If you want voting lets vote. worked out well with doves and wolves
> 
> all these years of brown and down only 1.5 year old bucks was apparently bad for the heard. I mean we only had 2+ million.
> 
> i do agree and think that in many areas they were overpopulated and needed thinning but if they were "unhealthy" it was only due to population. not age structure.


Yes the DNR is to use sound science to HELP determine game regulations. Not science alone as the deciding factor.


----------



## 357Maximum

devilsbuck said:


> Well then. Looks like the newbie will have 19 out of 20 bucks to choose from. Not bad.
> If you think it will serve no purpose and that it will only restrict 5% of the buck population then why are you so against it?
> 
> Here is what I believe.
> 
> I don't believe hunters who say they don't want to impose their standards on others as being genuine in what they claim their standards to be when they fight so vigorously against things such as APR's.
> In my experience the past 15 years of dealing with deer management from both the state level and local level hunters who really feel that way keep quiet, mind their own business and follow the regulations set forth by the government agencies, even when they don't really agree with them because they never needed any help from deer managers to achieve their goals.



So in essence you are calling me a liar....hmmmm



I need zero help from any agency, never have. Go ahead and call me a liar again.


----------



## GDLUCK

willy05 said:


> All this talk always leads into for the health of the herd. Just curious, how do you doe shooters pic out the the right doe, they have what 90% of the genes passed on to the young. What if we've been shooting all the good breeders. I know a breeder and his 2 prized deer are does and their doe fawns. They continually produce the best buck offspring body and antler size.


Most dog people would also agree that the female brings as much to the plate if not more that the stud. my experience is the female brings MORE.


----------



## mbrewer

devilsbuck said:


> I don't know if mature bucks are smarter than us, I would say no. What makes them seem so smart is they are not in abundance. It is not really hunting them that is so difficult it is locating one on your hunting grounds to hunt.


Preaching to the choir. I know how hard they are to find, I find at least one to hunt every year. This year was better than most, I found two. Haven't seen either of them on the hoof...so far. There's still time, a North breeze or two and I might get it done yet.


----------



## Waif

Nice pics .357 Max.
All one shot kills I presume?
Nice underhammer in the one pic.
I should have a pic somewhere,I had it here once,let me look...


----------



## mbrewer

devilsbuck said:


> I think the guys who want the regulation changes but don't practice them, really aren't sure what they want and find excuses to justify their reason for killing a young buck. The neighbors will, he was injured, etc.
> If you feel the need to justify your killing of an animal, one needs to look in the mirror to see the biggest problem.


Probably more than some truth to that statement. I hope you aren't too proud to accept their support though. 66% is a pretty high threshold.


----------



## RMH

357Maximum said:


> So in essence you are calling me a liar....hmmmm
> 
> 
> 
> I need zero help from any agency, never have. Go ahead and call me a liar again.


----------



## GDLUCK

Pinefarm2015 said:


> As a shrinking minority in this state, and a shrinking minority politically, we should discuss how to unite ourselves on an issue instead of dividing ourselves.
> For all those wishing their NLP hunting could improve, focusing on getting more public land logging will do far more good than rehashing the APR pie fight.


Totally agree here too.

I hate baiting. won't hunt over or even near a bait pile. 

Bear hunting. See no purpose for it especially since they are only hunted over bait or chased down with dogs.

Elk in Mi. my litlle experience is that they seemed almost tame. not the fear of humans like deer. I could b wrong. either way no desire to hunt them in Mi.

I don't and won't shoot anything that i won't eat. so coyote etc.

I have no desire and would not consider stopping anyone from baiting, or bear hunting etc. there is the problem. GREED.


----------



## jr28schalm

Are them all pa bucks?


----------



## johnhunter247

357Maximum said:


> Thanks, already got my apr's...I told Santa to put the M.A.P.R's into someone else's chimney however.


I will give you my address! Tell him to send them to zone 3 in Michigan!


----------



## DirtySteve

sniper said:


> I'd be curious to know the average age of us MS posters on this thread. If it's under 30 (which I expect very few by your posts) and your a fun governing anti-apr guy, you will not like our future in this state.


Sometime when i read this thread I think it is a bunch of 7 yr olds bickering.


----------



## FREEPOP

johnhunter247 said:


> I'm curious what it takes to become a respected member on here... Who decides who's respected or not?


----------



## DirtySteve

GDLUCK said:


> Been thinking that myself. weren't tere some bills passed to ensure the dnr managed by "science" and not the whims of public vote? If you want voting lets vote. worked out well with doves and wolves
> 
> all these years of brown and down only 1.5 year old bucks was apparently bad for the heard. I mean we only had 2+ million.
> 
> i do agree and think that in many areas they were overpopulated and needed thinning but if they were "unhealthy" it was only due to population. not age structure.



You are talking about proposal G. Look it up. It created the NRC and states that decisions should be made with science AND public input. There is wording in proposal g that states the NRC has to discuss all issues in a public forum and give consideration to public input.


----------



## 357Maximum

johnhunter247 said:


> I will give you my address! Tell him to send them to zone 3 in Michigan!



I gave him pretty explicit delivery details/instructions. It would certainly be hard on the chimney and I am not sure how much good they would do a person with a destroyed chimney.


----------



## Waif

Only a traditionalist would have a chimney.
Them non traditionalist tear em right off and hide the opening.
Oh yaa,look around at all them non chimney homes.
Even their lawn deer ornaments have big racks. l.o.l..


----------



## 357Maximum

Waif said:


> Only a traditionalist would have a chimney.
> Them non traditionalist tear em right off and hide the opening.
> Oh yaa,look around at all them non chimney homes.
> Even their lawn deer ornaments have big racks. l.o.l..



I do not have deer lawn ornaments no more. I was practicing with my bow and I just could not help myself. I had to put an arrow in them.....temptation plum overruled.


----------



## Waif

That's o.k..
I don't have a chimney.
Defective house didn't come with one.

Checked the few guys on a Pa. thread on another site for pics.again.
None yet.
Not an accurate reflection on the state though.
Rough rocky ground by them and the small number of posters my guess...with one reported sighting of some deer.


----------



## 357Maximum

I cannot believe how dense certain areas are in Pennsylvania. It's like a rocky jungle in spots. Shocked me the first time I went there.


----------



## Waif

Google earthed a specific region a lot looking for some things.
Lots of drainage's(runs their called) in steep terrain and old coal mining areas.
History too....of natives and too a French route from great lakes heading through Pa. to go north.
Then ,well here they come....and there goes the neighborhoodnicks.


----------



## swampbuck

DirtySteve said:


> You are talking about proposal G. Look it up. It created the NRC and states that decisions should be made with science AND public input. There is wording in proposal g that states the NRC has to discuss all issues in a public forum and give consideration to public input.


WRONG....the prop G that voters passed requires them to use sound science.

Prop G was a competing ballot initiative to proposal D which sought to eliminate bear baiting. Exactly the opposite of what you claim, Its purpose was to REMOVE social desires from game management. Prop G did NOT create the NRC it was a directive to the DNR to use sound science.

In the implementation of proposalG it became the MNREPA. And that resulted in the items you mention. It is what it is.....but one thing it is NOT, that is what the voters intended.

If proposal G had been implemented as the voters intended, not only would we not have these tainted surveys, we would have a dove season, and likely a wolf season also.


----------



## mbrewer

devilsbuck said:


> How is what going for me?


You said, "_I stated right of the get go, I'm in it for bigger bucks_". I just wondered how that was working out for you. success wise I suppose.


----------



## mbrewer

johnhunter247 said:


> I'm curious what it takes to become a respected member on here... Who decides who's respected or not?


Notable if you prefer. Ultimately, it's the moderators who determine who is or isn't.


----------



## FREEPOP

357Maximum said:


> I gave him pretty explicit delivery details/instructions. It would certainly be hard on the chimney and I am not sure how much good they would do a person with a destroyed chimney.


----------



## FREEPOP

357Maximum said:


> I do not have deer lawn ornaments no more. I was practicing with my bow and I just could not help myself. I had to put an arrow in them.....temptation plum overruled.


----------



## RMH

FREEPOP said:


>


Susan Gail quotes.......:cheeky-sm


----------



## johnhunter247

FREEPOP said:


>


That's exactly how I felt when I seen the buck poles in the two best counties in Michigan this year on the gun opener! With that said I don't care how there delivered as long as we get them! I would roll around in what ever is coming down that chimney if it meant we were getting apr's! I'm sure it would be a great cover scent!


----------



## FREEPOP

I feel blessed for what I have and I hope, what ever my neighbor does, makes him feel that way too.


----------



## DirtySteve

swampbuck said:


> WRONG....the prop G that voters passed requires them to use sound science.
> 
> Prop G was a competing ballot initiative to proposal D which sought to eliminate bear baiting. Exactly the opposite of what you claim, Its purpose was to REMOVE social desires from game management. Prop G did NOT create the NRC it was a directive to the DNR to use sound science.
> 
> In the implementation of proposalG it became the MNREPA. And that resulted in the items you mention. It is what it is.....but one thing it is NOT, that is what the voters intended.
> 
> If proposal G had been implemented as the voters intended, not only would we not have these tainted surveys, we would have a dove season, and likely a wolf season also.



This is the second sentence in the wording of proposal G...... The Commission would have to issue orders regarding the taking of game after a public meeting and an opportunity for public input. 

The first sentence addresses the part about NRC authority and using scientific data to the greatest extent practicable. 

Technically it did not create the NRC but it did give the NRC the authority that we know it to have today.


My point in all of this is that proposal g isn't just about scientific data as some argue on here. It also gives the ability for sportsman's groups to sit in front of the NRC and voice their opinions. The NRC has to atleast listen to public opinion when making their decisions about policy.


----------



## Ranger Ray

DirtySteve said:


> This is the second sentence in the wording of proposal G...... The Commission would have to issue orders regarding the taking of game after a public meeting and an opportunity for public input.
> 
> The first sentence addresses the part about NRC authority and using scientific data to the greatest extent practicable.
> 
> Technically it did not create the NRC but it did give the NRC the authority that we know it to have today.
> 
> 
> My point in all of this is that proposal g isn't just about scientific data as some argue on here. It also gives the ability for sportsman's groups to sit in front of the NRC and voice their opinions. The NRC has to atleast listen to public opinion when making their decisions about policy.


Well lets think about the context of how G came about. It was to stop a bunch of anti's from using social opinion (vote of we the people) to control game management. It's why G wanted the game management professionals by sound science to control game management. As it is law, we have a right as citizens to give our opinion, of course our DNR takes our opinion into consideration. Now you want us to believe that when there is no science to advance a restriction, we can manage by social opinion. Too funny. If the DNR would have said, we think age structure should be, might be, we want to do a study, what do you think (think public opinion) then changed the law, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. But seeing how the state allowed a group to politic across the state to push an ideology, and used a popular vote of the people, void of science, they violated their own mandate. Nothing knew here though, manipulation and obfuscation is politics. Now we are all left screaming because the wolf issue is outside the game management professionals decision making and political. Well, who'd of thought. The system is being manipulated politically. It's why we are seeing circular argument in these special interests agenda. It's science! Show us it. Oh, oh, its social! Yeah whatever.


----------



## hartman756

bioactive said:


> There is no additional proposal on the table at present. Nor is there any apparent mood on the NRC to hear one.


Better talk to your former LPDMI buddies jim . They are already promoting/ promising a new push for MARS in 2017 for the rest of the state again .


----------



## bioactive

johnhunter247 said:


> Please show me where Michigan kills more 4/5 year old bucks than Ohio and Indiana combined. Three and a half year old deer aren't mature.


It makes no sense to talk about numbers of deer when comparing states, because each state has different populations of deer and hunters. The data have to be normalized to a percentage or they are meaningless. 

In other words, what are the chances of an individual hunter walking out into the field and killing a "mature" buck?

So let's take two locations.

Location A has 10,000 deer and 3,000 hunters.

They harvest 500 mature bucks, or 1 for every 6 hunters.

Location B has only 5000 deer and 1000 hunters.

They harvest 400 mature bucks, or one for every 2.5 hunters.

Munster will tell you that place A kills more mature bucks, leaving you to your own conclusions, since he knows it does not really mean anything because the data are not per capita. He is hoping you will conclude that location A must be a better place to hunt because they kill more mature bucks. 

*But they only kill more bucks because they have more deer and more hunters. The results for each hunter are much lower in area A than area B. So, for a given hunter, Area B is a much better place to hunt, even though more mature bucks are killed in Area A. *


----------



## bioactive

hartman756 said:


> Better talk to your former LPDMI buddies jim . They are already promoting/ promising a new push for MARS in 2017 for the rest of the state again .


We all hope that will happen. But there is no proposal on the table, unless you know of one I have not heard about.


----------



## hartman756

bioactive said:


> Munster will tell you that place A kills more mature bucks, leaving you to your own conclusions, since he knows it does not really mean anything because the data are not per capita. He is hoping you will conclude that location A must be a better place to hunt because they kill more mature bucks.


I ask you in another thread where this subject was brought up what the ratio ( %) of hunters killing an older buck was for each of the states Munster posted . Are those states really killing more older bucks per hunter or are you just insinuating that?


----------



## hartman756

bioactive said:


> We all hope that will happen. But there is no proposal on the table, unless you know of one I have not heard about.


Of coarse there is no proposal _"already on the table"_ this early but it is in the planning stages to be put on the table as soon as it can be.


----------



## jr28schalm

After hartmen and the pile of forkies, not sure I would beleave something he writes...lol.....I HOPE ITS TRUE THOU


----------



## hartman756

jr28schalm said:


> After hartmen and the pile of forkies, not sure I would beleave something he writes...lol.....I HOPE ITS TRUE THOU


So the QDMA and the pics they obtained of them and posted on social media are all lies then ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????


----------



## Munsterlndr

johnhunter247 said:


> Please show me where Michigan kills more 4/5 year old bucks than Ohio and Indiana combined. Three and a half year old deer aren't mature.


3.5 year old deer are not the goal of APR's, or at least that's what you have been telling us ad nauseum. Just advancing the age class one year, remember?


----------



## Munsterlndr

bioactive said:


> Are these all from check stations checked by the DNR, or are some of them using age estimates of hunters who call in on the phone in mandatory reporting programs. Complete silliness if you are comparing eye to snout measurements taken by a hunter and given over the phone to a tooth wear check by a trained person at a check station. Also, voluntary programs are going to underreport young deer compared to mandatory ones. People do not bring button bucks in to check stations for the most part but they are required to report them in mandatory systems. Care to break out how all these data are collected?


The data is from QDMA and from individual state annual deer reports published by each states DNR's. Given that trained biologists are not very accurate using the tooth wear method, it's kind of funny that you are worried about layment reporting ages.


----------



## johnhunter

I'll believe Michigan has buck age structure like OH, KY, IN, IA, IL, KS, etc., when lots of outfitters are making a living marketing expensive SLP deer hunts to out-of-staters.

Not holding my breath.


----------



## November Sunrise

farmlegend said:


> I'll believe Michigan has buck age structure like OH, KY, IN, IA, IL, KS, etc., when lots of outfitters are making a living marketing expensive SLP deer hunts to out-of-staters.
> 
> Not holding my breath.


Truth.

All one has to do is check out the buck inventory at a Camden MI area processor a couple days into firearm season. Camden is about 4 miles north of the Ohio border.

Then check out the buck inventory at a West Unity OH area deer processor a few days into their firearm season. West Unity is about 5 miles south of the MI border.

There ain't no comparison. The differing regs lead to much different results.


----------



## soggybtmboys

November Sunrise said:


> Truth.
> 
> All one has to do is check out the buck inventory at a Camden MI area processor a couple days into firearm season. Camden is about 4 miles north of the Ohio border.
> 
> Then check out the buck inventory at a West Unity OH area deer processor a few days into their firearm season. West Unity is about 5 miles south of the MI border.
> 
> There ain't no comparison. The differing regs lead to much different results.


I hunt down in East Gilead, there is a lot of truth in this. There culture and views are a lot different just up the road comparatively speaking as well.


----------



## Pinefarm2015

Looking at the numbers, it would seem that the tough snow depth Winters in Michigan coupled with APR's was the only thing that probably brought down yearling buck harvest percentage to 47% in 2013. Notice that WI didn't have any decrease, nor as deep of snow, but NH, NY, NJ and PA also had major snow falls and drops in yearling buck harvest. Maybe the biggest driver in the reduction was APR's in a larger chunk of the state?
https://www.qdma.com/uploads/pdf/2015_WR.pdf


----------



## bioactive

Pinefarm2015 said:


> Looking at the numbers, it would seem that the tough snow depth Winters in Michigan coupled with APR's was the only thing that probably brought down yearling buck harvest percentage to 47% in 2013. Notice that WI didn't have any decrease, nor as deep of snow, but NH, NY, NJ and PA also had major snow falls and drops in yearling buck harvest. Maybe the biggest driver in the reduction was APR's in a larger chunk of the state?
> https://www.qdma.com/uploads/pdf/2015_WR.pdf


Correct, and in fact year after year it is the UP component of the harvest, with their much better buck age structure in the harvest, that accounts for MI being as good as it compared to other states. Take the UP and the 13 counties out of the picture and MI is worse than all the other states. And the SLP still really has poor age structure. 

In the year they are touting, 2013, when the statewide yearling harvest went down to 47% according to the QDMA report, the yearling harvest was 64% in the SLP, 53% in the NLP (largely because of 13 counties with APRs) and 23% in the UP (largely due to a severe winter that reduced the yearling numbers).

So people can talk all they want about comparing MI to OH for example, but in the zone I live in, which has the most hunters and the most deer harvested, and has more similar climate and soils to OH, the age structure remains about as bad as it gets anywhere. The anti-APR guys want to ignore that 64% yearling harvest experienced by 335,000 hunters.


----------



## mbrewer

devilsbuck said:


> You have some valid points about the young hunters but you are a little off base. There are many 20 somethings out there that are pushing to let those 2.5 year olds go. Some even are striving for the fully mature route. Their learning curve on how to hunt older bucks is easily reduced by all the information at their finger tips.
> I met a young man who is 24 years old and an avid bowhunter. I had heard he had quite a collection hanging on his wall. Little did I know what exactly that was. When I saw his impressive display of Michigan bucks, I began to pick his brain. This kid was impressive with his knowledge. He knew things at such a young age that took me up until a few years ago to learn.
> In many of the younger hunters minds they think they can mimic the Outdoor Channel. When a bunch of them see it on tv and apply it to their own hunts and have early success, there is no looking back and the bar gets set high fast. With their youthful enthusiasm and the typical "I know it all" attitude many younger people have they begin to push their ideas onto other hunters.


Interesting take on a reasonable summation.. I can definitely understand and support the gist of what you're saying.


----------



## 2508speed

farmlegend said:


> I'll believe Michigan has buck age structure like OH, KY, IN, IA, IL, KS, etc., when lots of outfitters are making a living marketing expensive SLP deer hunts to out-of-staters.
> 
> Not holding my breath.


The states mentioned don't have the hunting population Michigan has. And they have crops to feed the deer. Outfitters could not make a living in SLP because all the land owners already have the land leased out for hunting. I'm sure you have turned money down and looking for more on the free agent market.


----------



## mbrewer

bucko12pt said:


> Yeah, but you had the SMART guys on your side, all 140 of them.
> 
> Common sense would tell you if the most prominent anti APR site only has 140 members, there's a very limited number of hunters opposed.


Semantics maybe but common sense doesn't generally trump qualified data. The available data indicates the non supporting population is, if not organized, at least considerable.


----------



## 357Maximum

2508speed said:


> The states mentioned don't have the hunting population Michigan has. And they have crops to feed the deer. Outfitters could not make a living in SLP because all the land owners already have the land leased out for hunting. I'm sure you have turned money down and looking for more on the free agent market.



The post you quoted tells me the direction he would like to see things head eventually though. Must be part of them "baby steps" they keep talking about. Sounds like the old give em an inch and they will take a mile to me. I see the whole MAPR movement making deer hunting into a rich man's sport in Michigan if given some time, maybe I am just cynical or maybe not, but it is how I see it. I am sure the Mandatory APR will reduce hunters numbers in the end, which will make THEIR hunting better....WIN WIN for THE Feudal Lords among THEM, their plan is coming together. They are going to use the every man to screw the every man in the end...the end game seems clear to me the more I hear them dream aloud ...to me anyway. Just one man's opinion.


----------



## mbrewer

sniper said:


> Ridge I didn't know Mr H hired a lawyer!.....Here's my point..I'm 46 yrs old..I've been in and around hunting camps since the 70's...The mentality of whack the first rack went on through those days all the way into probably the late 90's with the guys I intermingled with and I was one of them..Guys started learning and they wanted more. Hunting is no different than anything else...It will evolve..I know the type of older posters and their mindset here..My Dad is 72 and he is about as old school as it gets..My sons generation wants bigger and better.. It just the way it works...Evolution


There is No *E *volution in MARP.


----------



## Munsterlndr

bioactive said:


> It makes no sense to talk about numbers of deer when comparing states, because each state has different populations of deer and hunters. The data have to be normalized to a percentage or they are meaningless.
> 
> In other words, what are the chances of an individual hunter walking out into the field and killing a "mature" buck?
> 
> So let's take two locations.
> 
> Location A has 10,000 deer and 3,000 hunters.
> 
> They harvest 500 mature bucks, or 1 for every 6 hunters.
> 
> Location B has only 5000 deer and 1000 hunters.
> 
> They harvest 400 mature bucks, or one for every 2.5 hunters.
> 
> Munster will tell you that place A kills more mature bucks, leaving you to your own conclusions, since he knows it does not really mean anything because the data are not per capita. He is hoping you will conclude that location A must be a better place to hunt because they kill more mature bucks.
> 
> *But they only kill more bucks because they have more deer and more hunters. The results for each hunter are much lower in area A than area B. So, for a given hunter, Area B is a much better place to hunt, even though more mature bucks are killed in Area A. *


You can try and spin the results any way you want, the fact remains that Michigan harvests more .35 and older bucks every year then Ohio and Indiana combined. That fact contradicts your claim that harvesting older bucks is a "rare" event in Michigan. I know it pains you to admit that fact but it's reality. Talk about hunter opportunity being greater in other states because there are fewer hunters per deer is largely moot, the fact is that Michigan has more hunters then both of those states combined and still manages till kill more older bucks. 

I didn't make any claims about which state it is a "better" place to hunt because that kind of evaluation is totally subjective. For those of you fixated on big antlers, you may perceive some other states as being a "better" place to hunt because you may have a greater chance of bagging a booner because of fewer hunters. Of course you may be sitting in a ladder stand next to a cut corn field to do it, with trucks whizzing by on the highway 100 yards away. Some hunters would rather sit in a cedar swamp in Northern Michigan where the only noise they hear is a crow in the distance or a chickadee on the branch next to their stand, despite the fact that there are more hunters and fewer booners, they may view that as being a "better" hunting experience. 

But regardless, any way you want to try and spin it, the fact remains that Michigan harvest more older bucks every year then any other Midwestern state. Something you will just have to deal with.


----------



## Pinefarm2015

Munsterlndr said:


> You want to compare one zone in Michigan to an entire state and believe that it's a valid comparison. Ohio does not have uniform harvest percentages throughout the entire state, nor does Wisconsin or any other state.
> 
> Again, when comparing one state to another, in an apples to apples comparison, Michigan compares very favorably despite your best attempt to try and deny that fact. In the SLP last year, yearling harvest dropped from around 64% the prior year to around 53%, without any APR's or severe winter weather. What excuse are you going to use to explain that away. The fact is that yearling harvest as a percentage of antlered harvest has been on a downward trend for the last decade in Michigan and very little of that is attributable to either Mandatory APR's or inclement weather.


But for the tough Winters, 2013 and 2014 would most likely have been on par with the previous 4 seasons. Deer/auto accidents were also way down, as was the herd. In years following tough Winters with high button buck Winter kill and fawns lost in gestation due to stress, yearling buck harvest usually will sharply decline. With statewide deer/auto accidents declining 8% from 2013 to 2014 alone, I'm frankly surprised yearling buck kill didn't decline even further.

DNR reports 2014 deer hunting harvest down across Michigan
LANSING, MI – The Michigan Department of Natural Resources recently issued a Michigan Deer Harvest Survey Report on the 2014 hunting seasons indicating that roughly 615,000 hunters statewide harvested a total of roughly 329,000 deer. The harvest represents a drop of 15 percent from 2013.
Wildlife managers report that regional declines in deer harvest were greatest in the Upper Peninsula, where the overall harvest was down by nearly 36 percent.

The DNR said several factors – including back-to-back years of severe winter weather that depleted the deer population in some parts of the state – contributed to the decline.
*Other population indicators*
DNR deer program biologist Ashley Autenrieth said U.P. deer-vehicle collisions tallied 2,961, down 22 percent from 2013. Crop damage permit kills were down to 1,664 in 2014 from 1,745 the previous year.

“These two factors indicate a drop in the overall deer population,” Autenrieth said.

Wildlife managers report that regional declines in deer harvest were greatest in the Upper Peninsula, where the overall harvest was down by nearly 36 percent.

The DNR said several factors – including back-to-back years of severe winter weather that depleted the deer population in some parts of the state – contributed to the decline.


----------



## Big Frank 25

Nun with a gun.


----------



## Waif

hartman756 said:


> It is not that I think that, it is that is what the PR movement to get MARs made permanent with the revote is trying to make hunters think. I live in the NWLP and always have and I know these older bucks were always here and what it took to go after one . Now that MARs have passed the QDMA is trying to show it has made it some how easy to kill these bucks because there is now so many of them.
> I say hunters need to hunt the NWLP and see for themselves how much better or worse the hunting is under MARs.


Yes Sir.
I hunted there today.
Hosted by friends , one who was kind enough to carry my crossbow to allow getting way back of beyond.
One hunt ,successful or not does not a good judge of older buck potential make though it would be easy to argue either way...
I really enjoyed going ,except for the long drive each way , for me anyway.
For as remote an area we were in ,lots of fresh hunting sign including a visitor leaving trash in a blind one friend built.
Perfectly legal to use some one else's blind on public land (despite the builders displeasure ), though litter is an insult any where.
I smoke but not on stand today and I take my butts out with me. Pockets bring out what they bring in too.
Lots of sign other areas too today of recent traffic and litter.
I'm not inexperienced with knowing if I'm out a ways.....and the area was as far from a paved road or sign of a dwelling ect. as I,ve been in quite a while. Can't blame that aspect of area.
That remoteness,geographically anyway alone was nice. And other wildlife sightings.

Lots of year round scouting is key. Then an attempt at sites without other hunters(l.o.l..)
Then getting hunts in before firearm if seeing a buck not at mach 3 is a goal.
Still no guarantee.
Like many public places in the lower, if you are dry and not bleeding and footsore, you deal with plenty of human traffic eventually.
Don't take much for an experienced buck to switch to under the radar when traffic picks up. .


----------



## Munsterlndr

Pinefarm2015 said:


> But for the tough Winters, 2013 and 2014 would most likely have been on par with the previous 4 seasons. Deer/auto accidents were also way down, as was the herd. In years following tough Winters with high button buck Winter kill and fawns lost in gestation due to stress, yearling buck harvest usually will sharply decline. With statewide deer/auto accidents declining 8% from 2013 to 2014 alone, I'm frankly surprised yearling buck kill didn't decline even further.
> 
> DNR reports 2014 deer hunting harvest down across Michigan
> LANSING, MI – The Michigan Department of Natural Resources recently issued a Michigan Deer Harvest Survey Report on the 2014 hunting seasons indicating that roughly 615,000 hunters statewide harvested a total of roughly 329,000 deer. The harvest represents a drop of 15 percent from 2013.
> Wildlife managers report that regional declines in deer harvest were greatest in the Upper Peninsula, where the overall harvest was down by nearly 36 percent.
> 
> The DNR said several factors – including back-to-back years of severe winter weather that depleted the deer population in some parts of the state – contributed to the decline.
> *Other population indicators*
> DNR deer program biologist Ashley Autenrieth said U.P. deer-vehicle collisions tallied 2,961, down 22 percent from 2013. Crop damage permit kills were down to 1,664 in 2014 from 1,745 the previous year.
> 
> “These two factors indicate a drop in the overall deer population,” Autenrieth said.
> 
> Wildlife managers report that regional declines in deer harvest were greatest in the Upper Peninsula, where the overall harvest was down by nearly 36 percent.
> 
> The DNR said several factors – including back-to-back years of severe winter weather that depleted the deer population in some parts of the state – contributed to the decline.


Not sure what the point you are trying to make is. That the winter kill of yearling bucks is the reason that Michigan hunters as a whole harvested a lower percentage of juvenile bucks then other Midwestern states? Since the harvest of UP bucks was only about 10% of the total antlered harvest last year, even a significant reduction in the number of yearlings harvested in the UP would have little tangible impact on the statewide percentage. 

Again, there has been a sustained, long term trend in the percentage of yearling bucks harvested in Michigan and there is no reason to believe that what we are seeing is not simply a continuation of that trend.


----------



## Pinefarm2015

Munsterlndr said:


> Not sure what the point you are trying to make is. That the winter kill of yearling bucks is the reason that Michigan hunters as a whole harvested a lower percentage of juvenile bucks then other Midwestern states? Since the harvest of UP bucks was only about 10% of the total antlered harvest last year, even a significant reduction in the number of yearlings harvested in the UP would have little tangible impact on the statewide percentage.
> 
> Again, there has been a sustained, long term trend in the percentage of yearling bucks harvested in Michigan and there is no reason to believe that what we are seeing is not simply a continuation of that trend.


Winter kill and gestation stress was high in the northern 2/3's of the state and even in the SW SLP. So yes, when there's noticeably fewer yearling bucks in the NLP and UP and in parts of the state the EHD claimed a fair amount of deer, it's rather obvious that that is the cause of the decrease, as bad Winters have always caused a decline in yearling buck percentage, as there's fewer yearlings in the herd to harvest in the first place.
MDNR does a nice job of simplifying the explanation for those who may not quite understand the concept. This is from after the equally harsh 1978/79 Winter...
http://ww2.dnr.state.mi.us/publicat...abitat/Reports/WLD-library/2800-2899/2847.pdf


----------



## bucko12pt

hartman756 said:


> It is not that I think that, it is that is what the PR movement to get MARs made permanent with the revote is trying to make hunters think. I live in the NWLP and always have and I know these older bucks were always here and what it took to go after one . Now that MARs have passed the QDMA is trying to show it has made it some how easy to kill these bucks because there is now so many of them.
> I say hunters need to hunt the NWLP and see for themselves how much better or worse the hunting is under MARs.


They've been telling you here, on social media and word of mouth and you and your buddies are ignoring the fact that hunting has gotten much, much better because of the APR. 

Keeping your head buried in the sand isn't going to make that fact go away.


----------



## Pinefarm2015

Munsterlndr said:


> Not sure what the point you are trying to make is. That the winter kill of yearling bucks is the reason that Michigan hunters as a whole harvested a lower percentage of juvenile bucks then other Midwestern states? Since the harvest of UP bucks was only about 10% of the total antlered harvest last year, even a significant reduction in the number of yearlings harvested in the UP would have little tangible impact on the statewide percentage.
> 
> Again, there has been a sustained, long term trend in the percentage of yearling bucks harvested in Michigan and there is no reason to believe that what we are seeing is not simply a continuation of that trend.


Here's another good link from MDNR explaining when there's a lot of mortality of 7 to 11 month old button bucks, that there will be a lower percentage of yearling bucks the following year. And given that yearling bucks make up the majority of the kill, that has an impact...
http://ww2.dnr.state.mi.us/publicat...abitat/Reports/WLD-library/3200-3299/3251.pdf


----------



## mustang72

hartman756 said:


> It is not that I think that, it is that is what the PR movement to get MARs made permanent with the revote is trying to make hunters think. I live in the NWLP and always have and I know these older bucks were always here and what it took to go after one . Now that MARs have passed the QDMA is trying to show it has made it some how easy to kill these bucks because there is now so many of them.
> I say hunters need to hunt the NWLP and see for themselves how much better or worse the hunting is under MARs.


You do realize qdma and APRS are not the same .. and can you please provide a link to qdma saying this ..thanks in advance


----------



## 357Maximum

mustang72 said:


> You do realize qdma and APRS are not the same .. and can you please provide a link to qdma saying this ..thanks in advance



* The following is just one dudes opinion, so consider it for which it is* 

Cake and brownies aren't the same either, but their components are not all that far apart. I used to be semi pro/indifferent to QDMA as an entity......NOT NO MORE. They have convinced me that they have such similar traits/ methodology/ characteristics/membership to the gung ho Mandatory apr guys as to be lumped into the same genus in my opinion. They both want the same basic thing one just says it's all about the jawbone while the other admits it is all about the antlers. Love the QDMA's outlook on habitat and ethics, but the age thing along with kill all the does philosophy kills it for me on both accounts. It takes an buck and a doe to make another deer and killing a doe does not make a buck magically crawl out of the ground. A good idea taken too far becomes a bad one. They take the doe thing just a little to far and the MANDATORY apr guys take the antler thing waaaaaay to far. 

Cakes and brownies. 

*just one dude on the internets opinion, take it for what it is*


----------



## johnhunter

2508speed said:


> Outfitters could not make a living in SLP because all the land owners already have the land leased out for hunting.


No. Outfitters couldn't make a living here because no customer would pay thousands of dollars for a five-day SLP deer hunt. The buck age structure is too poor here in comparison to those other states. Mr. Market, who is never wrong, has spoken.



2508speed said:


> The states mentioned don't have the hunting population Michigan has.


Ohio has similar hunter density to what we have in Michigan.


----------



## mustang72

357Maximum said:


> * The following is just one dudes opinion, so consider it for which it is*
> 
> Cake and brownies aren't the same either, but their components are not all that far apart. I used to be semi pro/indifferent to QDMA as an entity......NOT NO MORE. They have convinced me that they have such similar traits/ methodology/ characteristics/membership to the gung ho Mandatory apr guys as to be lumped into the same genus in my opinion. They both want the same basic thing one just says it's all about the jawbone while the other admits it is all about the antlers. Love the QDMA's outlook on habitat and ethics, but the age thing along with kill all the does philosophy kills it for me on both accounts. It takes an buck and a doe to make another deer and killing a doe does not make a buck magically crawl out of the ground. A good idea taken too far becomes a bad one. They take the doe thing just a little to far and the MANDATORY apr guys take the antler thing waaaaaay to far.
> 
> Cakes and brownies.
> 
> *just one dude on the internets opinion, take it for what it is*



I agree with the doe harvest being to liberal in some areas ..as hunters we need to adjust to our areas and have some trigger restraint. There are areas in this state that do need to have more does taken. Again this has nothing to do with APRS maybe the first year a few more does were taken.
As far as the advancement of the buck age and seeing larger bucks in the woods with more bone on there head and having a more intense rut... We will just have to agree to disagree.. When you have over 66% of hunters wanting to try something and the end result is bigger bucks I say have at it!... Now if there is a negative to the herd and the DNR sees fit to get rid of APRS then I also say have at it! .. But so far I haven't seen a proven negative to the herd in Michigan with regards to APRS in the NW13.


----------



## hartman756

mustang72 said:


> You do realize qdma and APRS are not the same .. and can you please provide a link to qdma saying this ..thanks in advance


You do realize that it is the QDMA that is the organization that is responsible for the MARs proposal for the NWLP don't you? All this info is on their social media sites and members post where ever MARs are brought up around social media !


----------



## mustang72

hartman756 said:


> You do realize that it is the QDMA that is the organization that is responsible for the MARs proposal for the NWLP don't you? All this info is on their social media sites and members post where ever MARs are brought up around social media !


 Qdma link please


----------



## >WingIt<

mbrewer said:


> How are your results in comparison?


 As I have told everyone that has asked about my season it has been a season or yards. I made a commitment to myself last year to become a better hunter. I wanted my seasons to be more consistent and less lucky. Haven't gotten a deer down yet this year but, I would say it has been my best season since I used to hunt downstate in Hastings on a farm. I decided to scout 3 new locations for this year that I have never hunted but thought they showed great potential (all public). I found lots of great sign throughout the winter, spring, and summer. Located bedding areas, food, transitions, and pinch points.
The big thing I took away from this year is that until you are on stand and see how deer use a property,10 yards this way or that way can make a huge difference. Hunting thick areas leave very little room for stand error. I also know that my scouting was correct and I was in the right areas. Live and learn. 

While on stand this year I have seen a nice 5 point(he got poked on the 15th) 2 six points, 2 beautiful 8s, 2 ten points, and multiple scrub bucks. The rut activity the first week of November was nuts even though it was very warm. I haven't seen chasing like that since I hunted down state almost 8 years ago.

To some I guess my season would be a failure, but I judge seasons on the overall quality of the hunts and not just killing. Would I like to have some venison in the freezer?....Heck yeah. Tried to fill it the second week of October but I popped my shoulder out due to drawing my Mathews at a bad angle on a doe at 5 yards... Ouch. Still time though and the bow is back out till Jan 1st. 

In contrast a family member who does an average amount of scouting and prep shot his biggest buck to date. He also had a few encounters with some even bigger. So I guess it is still better to be lucky sometimes


----------



## DirtySteve

hartman756 said:


> Would not call you lazy at all but I thought the MARs in Grand Travers county made it so even the average weekend warrior could get one of those big bucks being posted out of the NWLP ? So why all the extreme work and effort ?



I think the answer to that question is in farmlegend's post earlier....

The reference of fishing in a lake for 2lb walleyes in hopes of a 5lb walleye. Compared to fishing in a lake for 5lb walleye in hopes of a 10lb walleye.

To me this is probably the most sensible and logical statement in this thread when it comes to explaining the the goals of maprs. The question in most people's mind is will maprs actually work? If they do I am all for them and I think most hunters will agree.


----------



## 357Maximum

mustang72 said:


> Qdma link please


Google QDMA+APR = tadaa

https://www.qdma.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57613


----------



## 357Maximum

DirtySteve said:


> I think the answer to that question is in farmlegend's post earlier....
> 
> The reference of fishing in a lake for 2lb walleyes in hopes of a 5lb walleye. Compared to fishing in a lake for 5lb walleye in hopes of a 10lb walleye.
> 
> To me this is probably the most sensible and logical statement in this thread when it comes to explaining the the goals of maprs. The question in most people's mind is will maprs actually work? If they do I am all for them and I think most hunters will agree.



This whole subject has been very painful for me. For the first time in my 42 years I have realized that the libtard anti hunters are not totally wrong about 50% of my fellow deer hunters. It truly is about the "trophy" and the antlers for most apparently. The hardest part is realizing that if they are right about that, what else are they right about?? Maybe we are just blood lusty creatons.....It's a thought exercise that takes me places I do not want to go, but yet here we are. Today I am glad to be in the minority of deer hunters that think meat/comraderie/ and the deer itself is the most important thing....not the antlers. Makes my belly ache a little and my brain hurt a lot. WHO KNEW "THEY" may have been right all along????


----------



## mustang72

[QUOTE="hartman756, 
Now that MARs have passed the QDMA is trying to show it has made it some how easy to kill these bucks because there is now so many of them.
.[/QUOTE]
My bad I wanted a link to this. Like I asked in post 849
Thanks in advance


----------



## DirtySteve

357Maximum said:


> This whole subject has been very painful for me. For the first time in my 42 years I have realized that the libtard anti hunters are not totally wrong about 50% of my fellow deer hunters. It truly is about the "trophy" and the antlers for most apparently. The hardest part is realizing that if they are right about that, what else are they right about?? Maybe we are just blood lusty creatons.....It's a thought exercise that takes me places I do not want to go, but yet here we are. Today I am glad to be in the minority of deer hunters that think meat/comraderie/ and the deer itself is the most important thing....not the antlers. Makes my belly ache a little and my brain hurt a lot. WHO KNEW "THEY" may have been right all along????



You are so dramatic. If I am hunting for deer that are bigger, older and have larger antlers I do not lose anything in the experience. The comradaery and deer camp "experience" still exists. If anything the "I should be able to bag any buck regardless of size" mentality is more of the "blood lusty creation" you are referring to.....even though I don't think many of us hunters are really that way.


----------



## 357Maximum

I posted what I am truly feeling. I already know my opinion does not matter to anyone in the big bone camp as it's not their will to care about others opinions........no biggie I can live with that. I posted it anyway as it is how I am honestly feeling on the matter. I never dreamed I would say this, but "THEY" may have a very valid point about the trophy hunter thing......Never dreamed I would say that................I would have lost that bet.


----------



## 357Maximum




----------



## Waif

Ooooh the old antler obsession card again!
I'd yell and scream and jump up and down and insist you discard any antlers..but that's not as Desmond Tu Tu's father told him,improving ones argument rather than raising ones voice.
Your desires and factors adjacent to accomplishing them being restricted by others are too considered in understanding your perspective of wanting yearlings defended.
Raggin on a property owner remote from yours who disagrees with your standards is kinda counter productive if trying to encourage any change..unless you just gave up and figure change will happen somehow without those isolated by derision?
A landowner addressed a neighbor guest over promoting Q.D.M. this year.
Only my opinion but how it was presented factored strongly, not having solicited the neighbors did not help either though both knew fairly accurate where matters stood there..

A 2/3 majority can effect change.
Would be nice if the majority could demand enough deer to see yearling bucks every where but specifics of where that majority hunts might factor enough they have no concern about it through having decent numbers.

We deplete with each and every kill.
One property with no great voluntary restrictions had a six point die from gutshot in a fence row. Followed about a week later by another six from ,per the neighbor who came and checked it out a road hit incident.
No one cheered of course.
Not all would have blazed away at them either, but all would rather they were utilized beyond the earth recovering there intrinsic value, despite the human selfishness of such thought.
The gutshot either traveled far or was poaching related but most hits on deer result in the locals knowing by advertising such events among themselves.


----------



## bioactive

357Maximum said:


> Some customers always demand V.I.P/preferred customer status...nothing new to see here, please move along.


APRs are not supported by the DNR unless surveys show that at least 66% of surveyed hunters favor the new regulations. So most hunters are VIPs, as should be the case.


----------



## TVCJohn

This is related to the PGC's deer mismanagement and ultimately rebukes the thread topic (again!).

http://www.acsl-pa.org/pdf/John Eveland Responds.pdf

It comes from this website below that claims to represent 200,000 sportsmen and women. It's been posted before but has some updated info. Some good info under the links of _Summary_, _Investigations_ and _Solutions_.

http://www.acsl-pa.org/index.htm


----------



## bioactive

TVCJohn said:


> This is related to the PGC's deer mismanagement and ultimately rebukes the thread topic (again!).
> 
> http://www.acsl-pa.org/pdf/John Eveland Responds.pdf
> 
> It comes from this website below that claims to represent 200,000 sportsmen and women. It's been posted before but has some updated info. Some good info under the links of _Summary_, _Investigations_ and _Solutions_.
> 
> http://www.acsl-pa.org/index.htm


Rebukes what?

You crack me up John. This is a local group that is mostly concerned with the deer population.

APRs are highly popular in PA, and there is no direct evidence that APRs alone have contributed to the decreased population of deer in PA, which was mainly achieved with liberal antlerless quotas.

*This rebukes nothing, it just reveals the great depth of your denial that in every PA survey, year after year, more than 60% of the hunters in PA support the current APRs. *


----------



## 357Maximum

bioactive said:


> *.
> 
> Disgusting.*


*


Some people feel that removing the smile from a young hunters face for shooting a forkhorn by an experienced hunter that chooses not to shoot the same forkhorn to be disgusting. Again the only difference be the severity of the situation. 

If taking a mantra/idea to extremes gets me banned I will have a nice day and carry on my way. I did not personally insult you afterall. I just took the same logic train to the next station....RIGHT?.*


----------



## devilsbuck

357Maximum said:


> *
> 
> 
> Some people feel that removing the smile from a young hunters face for shooting a forkhorn by an experienced hunter that chooses not to shoot the same forkhorn to be disgusting. Again the only difference be the severity of the situation.
> 
> If taking a mantra/idea to extremes gets me banned I will have a nice day and carry on my way. I did not personally insult you afterall. I just took the same logic train to the next station....RIGHT?.*


You are every where but at the logic station. 
I think that train past you 42 years ago.


----------



## Ranger Ray

devilsbuck said:


> Ummm so should we not look for public input and just allow whoever is in charge make what ever law they want?


No. Nor should we allow a vote of "we the people" to decide game management laws. Especially outside a check and balance system.


----------



## devilsbuck

Ranger Ray said:


> No. Nor should we allow a vote of "we the people" to decide game management laws. Especially outside a check and balance system.


I wasn't talking about just game laws. 
I was speaking as in how a democratic society is supposed to work.


----------



## DirtySteve

357Maximum said:


> *
> 
> 
> Some people feel that removing the smile from a young hunters face for shooting a forkhorn by an experienced hunter that chooses not to shoot the same forkhorn to be disgusting. *


You have to stop with this wiping smiles off kids faces argument. It is a bit ridiculous. Kids will still be shooting deer. Kids will still be smiling. No one is being deprived over apr's. They still get to hunt and shoot bucks.....the only difference is the bucks they get to shoot at are most likely bigger. 

Talk to any grade school teacher. Children learn at a faster pace with regimented rules and discipline. They thrive on it and it drives success. Take away rules and discipline in a classroom and see what happens to the development process. The same principles will carry over into deer hunting. 

To add one more note here.....most guys posting on here that are for apr's don't seem to have much issue with allowing youths to still shoot anything for the youth hunt. The amount of deer youths actually shoot is pretty insignificant.


----------



## swampbuck

bioactive said:


> Rebukes what?
> 
> You crack me up John. This is a local group that is mostly concerned with the deer population.
> 
> APRs are highly popular in PA, and there is no direct evidence that APRs alone have contributed to the decreased population of deer in PA, which was mainly achieved with liberal antlerless quotas.
> 
> *This rebukes nothing, it just reveals the great depth of your denial that in every PA survey, year after year, more than 60% of the hunters in PA support the current APRs. *


Liberal antlerless quotas like the mdnr does in Michigan apr areas?


----------



## 357Maximum

Some people on this topic do not seem to like my words so I will leave you with some beautiful words from others.


----------



## 357Maximum




----------



## Waif

devilsbuck said:


> I wasn't talking about just game laws.
> I was speaking as in how a democratic society is supposed to work.


When and how did it become a democratic society?
It is a republic.
Not my opinion, but how our process is.
We go through representatives, rather than the public deciding for example at a town hall meeting.
That does not mean the public's pulse should not be known or ignored but that use of the term democracy has been injected into modern lexicon to mean the people allow through consent the governing body too make the laws.
Kinda like saying A.R. means assault rifle when it does not ,and did not originally till the media failed when calling them automatics when the average citizen,through republican(?) process was denied possession of them , and further any rifle can be used in an assault ; yet the name stays despite the improper application.

Convincing , or rather attempting to instruct through the authority of it's citizenry the government then to unmake or not make an unpopular law though, tests that theory of democracy..
How local conflicts and laws that don't jive with federal ones and vice versa can factor as well.

Yes the constitution is dated, but not outdated, as it establishes a framework avoiding tyranny and or chaos.
Anarchy,dictatorship,totalitarianism, and other forms of authority fill voids when no foundation is held after being established with ruling parties often as contentious towards that foundation , or even more , than it's citizenry.


[By popular usage, however, the word "democracy" come to mean a form of government in which the government derives its power from the people and is accountable to them for the use of that power. In this sense the United States might accurately be called a democracy. However, there are examples of "pure democracy" at work in the United States today that would probably trouble the Framers of the Constitution if they were still alive to see them. Many states allow for policy questions to be decided directly by the people by voting on ballot initiatives or referendums. (Initiatives originate with, or are_initiated_ by, the people while referendums originate with, or are _referred_ to the people by, a state's legislative body.) That the Constitution does not provide for national ballot initiatives or referendums is indicative of the Framers' opposition to such mechanisms. They were not confident that the people had the time, wisdom or level-headedness to make complex decisions, such as those that are often presented on ballots on election day.]


----------



## malainse

I have seen this one posted here somewhere but can not remember ? I think it was a banned member like bucksnbows maybe ?

"If you seek a pleasant peninsula, look about you.", if you do not like what you see, please feel free to leave.
This peninsula will be just fine without you."


----------



## Waif

malainse said:


> I have seen this one posted here somewhere but can not remember ?
> 
> "If you seek a pleasant peninsula, look about you.", if you do not like what you see, please feel free to leave.
> This peninsula will be just fine without you."


Possibly an old native saying...


----------



## devilsbuck

357Maximum said:


> Some people on this topic do not seem to like my words so I will leave you with some beautiful words from others.
> ]


You have your opinion and that I respect. 
I don't agree but I do respect it. 

Some of your reasonings are out there and that makes it difficult to discuss the issue with you. 
Some of your "logic" on deer management has been disputed and proven wrong by professionals ( not chat room biologist). 

Like many hunters who have chosen sides on this Apr debate, very few will change their stance unless they are required to hunt under them. 

It has been easy for me to recognize there are a handful of members in these apr threads with enough understanding of the law, herd dynamics, and wildlife management to debate the topic. 
The rest of us are to involved with our personal goals and wants to see the big picture. 

Yet when it comes right down to it, those of us with the least knowledge will be the ones who will speak the loudest. 
Chime in the youth of today again. 
They are building in numbers, they are concerned with their personal goals and they will speak the loudest.


----------



## devilsbuck

Waif said:


> When and how did it become a democratic society?
> It is a republic.
> Not my opinion, but how our process is.
> We go through representatives, rather than the public deciding for example at a town hall meeting.
> That does not mean the public's pulse should not be known or ignored but that use of the term democracy has been injected into modern lexicon to mean the people allow through consent the governing body too make the laws.
> Kinda like saying A.R. means assault rifle when it does not ,and did not originally till the media failed when calling them automatics when the average citizen,through republican(?) process was denied possession of them , and further any rifle can be used in an assault ; yet the name stays despite the improper application.
> 
> Convincing , or rather attempting to instruct through the authority of it's citizenry the government then to unmake or not make an unpopular law though, tests that theory of democracy..
> How local conflicts and laws that don't jive with federal ones and vice versa can factor as well.
> 
> Yes the constitution is dated, but not outdated, as it establishes a framework avoiding tyranny and or chaos.
> Anarchy,dictatorship,totalitarianism, and other forms of authority fill voids when no foundation is held after being established with ruling parties often as contentious towards that foundation , or even more , than it's citizenry.
> 
> 
> [By popular usage, however, the word "democracy" come to mean a form of government in which the government derives its power from the people and is accountable to them for the use of that power. In this sense the United States might accurately be called a democracy. However, there are examples of "pure democracy" at work in the United States today that would probably trouble the Framers of the Constitution if they were still alive to see them. Many states allow for policy questions to be decided directly by the people by voting on ballot initiatives or referendums. (Initiatives originate with, or are_initiated_ by, the people while referendums originate with, or are _referred_ to the people by, a state's legislative body.) That the Constitution does not provide for national ballot initiatives or referendums is indicative of the Framers' opposition to such mechanisms. They were not confident that the people had the time, wisdom or level-headedness to make complex decisions, such as those that are often presented on ballots on election day.]


You type too much.


----------



## Waif

devilsbuck said:


> You type too much.


I peck with one finger.


----------



## johnhunter

DirtySteve said:


> You have to stop with this wiping smiles off kids faces argument. It is a bit ridiculous. Kids will still be shooting deer. Kids will still be smiling. No one is being deprived over apr's. They still get to hunt and shoot bucks.....the only difference is the bucks they get to shoot at are most likely bigger.


DS, you can get an AMEN!

My guess is if you tallied up all of the sub-3pt-a-side bucks taken in Michigan in a given year, the number of them them taken by kids is miniscule compared to what's killed by adults.


----------



## Waif

devilsbuck said:


> I wasn't talking about just game laws.
> I was speaking as in how a democratic society is supposed to work.


You don't know what type government you live under, believing it a democracy, but would affect it's laws by misquote of what type it is..
Whoo-boy.
Then you note I type too much rather than you read it and find confirmation from sources beyond my writing ,as you should with anyone's you contest. Or even the source you found your mistaken belief on.
While you continue to demean and complaint your credibility continues to slide.
As with the credibility of what/who you try to represent as you become a greater liability. To it's and their detriment through lack of knowledge , and lack of restraint in sharing that ignorance or learning anything to correct it.
Just follow the herd and make loud noise .


----------



## sniper

devilsbuck said:


> You type too much.


Thank God someone mentioned this!.... Waif would be a tremendous filibuster!


----------



## Rut-N-Strut

malainse said:


> I have seen this one posted here somewhere but can not remember ? I think it was a banned member like bucksnbows maybe ?
> 
> "If you seek a pleasant peninsula, look about you.", if you do not like what you see, please feel free to leave.
> This peninsula will be just fine without you."


You mean Devilsbuck? :lol:


----------



## sniper

357Maximum said:


>


And just think, you didn't write not one of these!


----------



## TVCJohn

bioactive said:


> Rebukes what?
> 
> You crack me up John. This is a local group that is mostly concerned with the deer population.
> 
> APRs are highly popular in PA, and there is no direct evidence that APRs alone have contributed to the decreased population of deer in PA, which was mainly achieved with liberal antlerless quotas.
> 
> *This rebukes nothing, it just reveals the great depth of your denial that in every PA survey, year after year, more than 60% of the hunters in PA support the current APRs. *


Geez Jim!! C'mon....a state can't be a big buck mecca if the hunters say the hunting is poor. The guy mentioned in that article who is a B&C scorer is also a PGC guy. The PGC deer mismanagement is what the ACSL is pointing out. Do you really expect someone working with the PGC on scoring deer to say the PGC is doing a poor job managing the deer herd?

I suspect you're selectively blind. I have stated and shown on numerous occasions the PA hunter surveys that show the majority of PA hunters support APR's....which is the only thing you can hang your very weak argument on. The APR support is not a secret. As you know I always post the sources and data for everyone to review. PA can have 80% support for APR's and the end harvest product will still be the same. PA hunters continue to say they are not satisfied with the number of bucks they see or the hunting. I guess not with only an 18% success rate. You smoothly like to skip over that perpetual end result because it directly refutes the APR argument and there is nothing you can do about.

The survey data shows that APR's HAVE NOT increased the buck population as your "more bigger better" theory claims. In fact the respondents are saying the deer population is decreasing in the units they hunt in. 

APR's have been in play there for 12 or 13 years and only something like 11.75% of the total buck harvest is 3.5 and older. If you think you have the answers, maybe you should go work for the PGC and tell them what they're doing wrong.


----------



## bioactive

TVCJohn said:


> Geez Jim!! C'mon....a state can't be a big buck mecca if the hunters say the hunting is poor. The guy mentioned in that article who is a B&C scorer is also a PGC guy. The PGC deer mismanagement is what the ACSL is pointing out. Do you really expect someone working with the PGC on scoring deer to say the PGC is doing a poor job managing the deer herd?
> 
> I suspect you're selectively blind. I have stated and shown on numerous occasions the PA hunter surveys that show the majority of PA hunters support APR's....which is the only thing you can hang your very weak argument on. The APR support is not a secret. As you know I always post the sources and data for everyone to review. PA can have 80% support for APR's and the end harvest product will still be the same. PA hunters continue to say they are not satisfied with the number of bucks they see or the hunting. I guess not with only an 18% success rate. You smoothly like to skip over that perpetual end result because it directly refutes the APR argument and there is nothing you can do about.
> 
> The survey data shows that APR's HAVE NOT increased the buck population as your "more bigger better" theory claims. In fact the respondents are saying the deer population is decreasing in the units they hunt in.
> 
> APR's have been in play there for 12 or 13 years and only something like 11.75% of the total buck harvest is 3.5 and older. If you think you have the answers, maybe you should go work for the PGC and tell them what they're doing wrong.


Of course the buck numbers are down. They reduced the entire herd radically through antlerless harvest.

APRs increase the number of bucks only in the case where the population remains stable, not in the case where the population was purposely reduced through antlerless harvest as was done in PA. 

Are you really so blindly against APRs that you cannot see that nothing you are posting has anything to do with APRs?

PA hunters are overall unhappy because deer numbers have gone down so much.

But they are happy with APRs.

You want to take their unhappiness about deer numbers and use it as an indictment of APRs and it isn't.

Nothing you are citing has any place in this thread, which is about the APRs in PA, and has nothing whatsoever to do with hunter satisfaction about the numbers of deer there.


----------



## DirtySteve

TVCJohn said:


> APR's have been in play there for 12 or 13 years and only something like 11.75% of the total buck harvest is 3.5 and older.


ONLY 11.75%??!! 

I would love to be able to say 12% of the bucks I see are 3.5 yrs old.


----------



## mbrewer

357Maximum said:


> Some people on this topic do not seem to like my words so I will leave you with some beautiful words from others.


Someone had to pay for the things we take for granted.


----------



## bioactive

357Maximum said:


>



SELFISHNESS: The rabid and strongly argued desire to keep regulations in place to allow you to shoot whatever buck you want, even though a majority of your fellow hunters would like to see those regulations change.

Yes, your stance is extremely selfish.


----------



## johnhunter247

bioactive said:


> Yes, I see you trying to mandate that things stay the same, maintaining the status quo of an antiquated management system that depletes the resource, reducing the quality of hunting for the majority that want to see things change.
> 
> Shouting aggressively, as you do, to maintain a status quo not desired by the majority of hunters is an effort to mandate that things remain the same. All so you can continue to kill Sparky and fulfill your antler obsession.


That is very well said Jim!


----------



## Waif

bioactive said:


> SELFISHNESS: The rabid and strongly argued desire to keep regulations in place to allow you to shoot whatever buck you want, even though a majority of your fellow hunters would like to see those regulations change.
> 
> Yes, your stance is extremely selfish.


And when the majority of average wage citizens wants the minority of those with the greatest wealth to pay a higher percentage of taxes ,despite their already paying multiple times the average citizens wage in taxes, the majorities argument of it being for the benefit of all makes it acceptable then?
Just vote on it and be done.
Oh wait ,we have a system that does not allow that....right?
Perhaps a survey trotted out and presented to our representatives would be in order with request of pushing it further.

The choice of that minority is to remain silent or voice themselves.
The majority are expected to do the same.
Neither create law,only try to influence it.
How that influence is used is critical to success and or failure.
Keep isolating your position. It's working.


----------



## ridgewalker

bioactive said:


> SELFISHNESS: The rabid and strongly argued desire to keep regulations in place to allow you to shoot whatever buck you want, even though a majority of your fellow hunters would like to see those regulations change.
> 
> Yes, your stance is extremely selfish.


My good Dr., those that want to take mature older larger-antlered bucks can do that now. No one is restricting them from doing that during any of the seasons. They exist in many areas of Michigan right now and that is proven every year. It is the MAPR group that wants to restrict hunters from having a choice.

The data that the DNR annually presents seems to show a growing trend of self-restraint in the taking of yearlings and younger bucks so that would suggest to me that education or positive information would accomplish more than further restrictions placed on all hunters.


----------



## d_rek

ridgewalker said:


> ... would suggest to me that education or positive information would accomplish more than further restrictions placed on all hunters.


You're getting closer to a very real solution to the REAL problem people are NOT discussing...

But information does not flow freely and educational systems, if they exist at all, can be flawed in their delivery... I'm afraid those DNR billboards (shoot or don't shoot) are not terribly effective information delivery tools.


----------



## motdean

bioactive said:


> SELFISHNESS: The rabid and strongly argued desire to keep regulations in place to allow you to shoot whatever buck you want, even though a majority of your fellow hunters would like to see those regulations change.
> 
> Yes, your stance is extremely selfish.


Jim,
I noticed that my post #384 in this thread went untouched by all of the pro-APR guys. I am hopeful, based on your comments here that you will address it.

http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/threads/deer-management-poll.553059/page-26#post-5723175


----------



## devilsbuck

motdean said:


> Jim,
> I noticed that my post #384 in this thread went untouched by all of the pro-APR guys. I am hopeful, based on your comments here that you will address it.
> 
> http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/threads/deer-management-poll.553059/page-26#post-5723175


Lol. 

This is funny.


----------



## DirtySteve

motdean said:


> Jim,
> I noticed that my post #384 in this thread went untouched by all of the pro-APR guys. I am hopeful, based on your comments here that you will address it.
> 
> http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/threads/deer-management-poll.553059/page-26#post-5723175



I think your statement wasn't addressed because no one is trying to deny children anything on this thread. It is a baseless statement.

I haven't heard the pro apr crowd arguing to abolish the youth hunt.


----------



## Ranger Ray

devilsbuck said:


> Lol.
> 
> This is funny.


Whats funny is the notion you are the reincarnated banned member. This true?


----------



## sniper

Ranger Ray said:


> Whats funny is the notion you are the reincarnated banned member. This true?


Devilsbuck or 357Max?..Which one has come back to haunt us???...Hmmm let me pick...


----------



## soggybtmboys

357Maximum said:


> So when someones daughter is gang raped by 2 or 3 thugs, the "majority" are in fact V.I.P's right? Your logic not mine.
> 
> One must be careful wishing for true democracy/mob rule. There was a good reason this country started out as a Federal Republic and not a democracy. If you cannot understand that by this stage in your life...well...ahh......ummmm.... just........... well.
> 
> Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%. Thomas Jefferson


What in the world is wrong with you? Comparing buck management versus a heinous crime against someone's daughter as having parity, you need to go away. You're disgusting.


----------



## johnhunter

ridgewalker said:


> My good Dr., those that want to take mature older larger-antlered bucks can do that now. No one is restricting them from doing that during any of the seasons. They exist in many areas of Michigan right now and that is proven every year.


Apex fallacy. Drawing conclusions about a general population based on characteristics of outliers at the end of the bell curve.


----------



## devilsbuck

Ranger Ray said:


> Whats funny is the notion you are the reincarnated banned member. This true?


No not true. 

I frequent several other Michigan deer hunting Facebook pages and this site came up in conversation multiple times, so I decided to check it out myself. 
I am actually very impressed with some of you. ( you being one of them) 
Mixed in with all the completely irrelevant claims of APRs there are some very valid arguments. This is a much more diverse discussion than when you are surrounded by like minded hunters.

I have spent much of my life hunting in Michigan up until 10 years ago. 
I hunt one small property in Hillsdale county and spend much of my time hunting in other states. 
I hunt other states where I feel my chances of killing a big buck are much better. 
I would like to see Michigan have APRs statewide to hopefully improve those odds here at home. 
I said early on that I'm in this for big bucks.


----------



## mustang72

357Maximum said:


> So when someones daughter is gang raped by 2 or 3 thugs, the "majority" are in fact V.I.P's right? Your logic not mine.
> 
> One must be careful wishing for true democracy/mob rule. There was a good reason this country started out as a Federal Republic and not a democracy. If you cannot understand that by this stage in your life...well...ahh......ummmm.... just........... well.
> 
> Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%. Thomas Jefferson


Wow!....as a father of 4 daughters you sir are in need of help. 

Steve if there is not at least a timeout for this type of disgusting talk I will lose some respect for this site....


----------



## motdean

DirtySteve said:


> I think your statement wasn't addressed because no one is trying to deny children anything on this thread. It is a baseless statement.
> 
> I haven't heard the pro apr crowd arguing to abolish the youth hunt.


Sorry, DS, I disagree. It is not a baseless statement.

If you are speaking on behalf of the pro-APR crowd, I would disagree with you. You are taking an experience away from the youth that would be happy shooting a deer that you would not be. IF we want to return the discussion back to the benefits of APR's in Pa, did they exclude youth from the mandatory APR's? 

Are you saying that you would allow young or inexperienced hunters the exemption in your view of how APR's should work? 

Finally, did you watch the video/episode?


----------



## fanrwing

devilsbuck said:


> No not true.
> 
> I frequent several other Michigan deer hunting Facebook pages and this site came up in conversation multiple times, so I decided to check it out myself.
> I am actually very impressed with some of you. ( you being one of them)
> Mixed in with all the completely irrelevant claims of APRs there are some very valid arguments. This is a much more diverse discussion than when you are surrounded by like minded hunters.
> 
> I have spent much of my life hunting in Michigan up until 10 years ago.
> I hunt one small property in Hillsdale county and spend much of my time hunting in other states.
> I hunt other states where I feel my chances of killing a big buck are much better.
> I would like to see Michigan have APRs statewide to hopefully improve those odds here at home.
> *I said early on that I'm in this for big bucks.[*/QUOTE]
> 
> An honest statement, finally. Several years and thousands of posts from guys claiming to not have a self interest, they just want to make it better for everyone pretending they don't want to get big bucks I may agree or disagree with you but I must admire your honesty.


----------



## kroppe

motdean said:


> ... back to the benefits of APR's in Pa, did they exclude youth from the mandatory APR's?
> ...


From the current PA Hunting and Trapping Digest:

Statewide, junior license holders, mentored youth, disabled hunters with a permit to use a vehicle, and resident active duty U.S. Armed Services personnel, can harvest antlered deer with two or more points on one antler, or a spike three or more inches in length. 

All other hunters must abide by additional antler restrictions

Senior license holders must abide by antler restrictions, as well.


A point is defined as any antler projection (including the brow tine) at least one inch in length from base to tip. The brow tine is the point immediately above the antler burr.


The main beam tip shall be counted as a point regardless of length.


An antlerless deer will remain defined as a deer without antlers, or a deer with antlers, both of which are less than 3 inches in length. A protected deer is one not defined as an antlered deer or an antlerless deer.


----------



## QDMAMAN

Waif said:


> I peck with one finger.



You're a pecker?


----------



## bioactive

motdean said:


> Jim,
> I noticed that my post #384 in this thread went untouched by all of the pro-APR guys. I am hopeful, based on your comments here that you will address it.
> 
> http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/threads/deer-management-poll.553059/page-26#post-5723175


There is a false assumption that the same hunter would not have been successful under aprs. 

Again it is no different than any other limit on any other game animal 

BTW. I do not think many opposed to APRs are selfish. Certainly not you. That was aimed directly at 357 who clearly has selfish antlerphilic motives.


----------



## FREEPOP

bioactive said:


> Yes, I see you trying to mandate that things stay the same, maintaining the status quo of an antiquated management system that depletes the resource, reducing the quality of hunting for the majority that want to see things change.
> 
> Shouting aggressively, as you do, to maintain a status quo not desired by the majority of hunters is an effort to mandate that things remain the same. All so you can continue to kill Sparky and fulfill your antler obsession.


Depleted resource? After 100 years, the resource is still here. I'd say that comment is absolutely false.


----------



## DirtySteve

motdean said:


> Sorry, DS, I disagree. It is not a baseless statement.
> 
> If you are speaking on behalf of the pro-APR crowd, I would disagree with you. You are taking an experience away from the youth that would be happy shooting a deer that you would not be. IF we want to return the discussion back to the benefits of APR's in Pa, did they exclude youth from the mandatory APR's?
> 
> Are you saying that you would allow young or inexperienced hunters the exemption in your view of how APR's should work?
> 
> Finally, did you watch the video/episode?


I started to watch the video until I saw you posted a link to the entire espisode.....no time to watch 30 mins at the moment. I saw the episode was going to show a youth hunt specifically. I don't hear anyone from the apr crowd asking to take away or change the youth hunt. There are a few people out there against the youth hunt but they are from both sides of the apr argument. 

Me personally.... I am for a trial period with APR restrictions statewide and leave youth hunt alone. I am for expanding the youth hunt beyond two days as well. Other states have much longer youth hunts. If you had to give youths the right to shoot any buck any season to get aprs passed I could be talked into that......but I disagree that it would be necasary. The idea here is that within 3-5yrs we are shooting the same percentage of buck post apr as prior apr. So adults or youth aren't being restricted. If that doesn't happen after a trial period I will be one of the guys asking to get rid of apr's.


----------



## bioactive

Waif said:


> And when the majority of average wage citizens wants the minority of those with the greatest wealth to pay a higher percentage of taxes ,despite their already paying multiple times the average citizens wage in taxes, the majorities argument of it being for the benefit of all makes it acceptable then?
> Just vote on it and be done.
> Oh wait ,we have a system that does not allow that....right?
> Perhaps a survey trotted out and presented to our representatives would be in order with request of pushing it further.
> 
> The choice of that minority is to remain silent or voice themselves.
> The majority are expected to do the same.
> Neither create law,only try to influence it.
> How that influence is used is critical to success and or failure.
> Keep isolating your position. It's working.


Extremely poor example in which outcomes are different for some (greater wealth) but not others (average wage). 

In the case of APRs no one is singled out to pay. All operate under the same rules. 

If you used the example that the majority (average wage) wanted to raise taxes on themselves AND the wealthy, the analogy would be more apropos.


----------



## SCOOTERBUM

DirtySteve said:


> Me personally.... I am for a trial period with APR restrictions statewide and leave youth hunt alone. I am for expanding the youth hunt beyond two days as well. Other states have much longer youth hunts. If you had to give youths the right to shoot any buck any season to get aprs passed I could be talked into that......but I disagree that it would be necasary. The idea here is that within 3-5yrs we are shooting the same percentage of buck post apr as prior apr. So adults or youth aren't being restricted. If that doesn't happen after a trial period I will be one of the guys asking to get rid of apr's.


No way.


----------



## bioactive

FREEPOP said:


> Depleted resource? After 100 years, the resource is still here. I'd say that comment is absolutely false.


When you have a herd in which 0.6% of males are adults compared to about 15% of females in the harvest, you have an example of a severely depleted resource. 

I said nothing about deer in general, which is a resource, but was referring to the male cohort, which is also a resource.


----------



## hartman756

bioactive said:


> In the case of APRs no one is singled out to pay. All operate under the same rules.
> 
> If you used the example that the majority (average wage) wanted to raise taxes on themselves AND the wealthy, the analogy would be more apropos.


Yes that is a perfect example . Do that with the vote on MARs and the % in favor drops to 46% according to the last DNR deer hunter opinion survey .
With the NWLP MARs survey two thirds of those that got to vote were hunters that were either from out of state or lived out of the MARs area in another part of the state. So that two thirds are voting for a regulation that they only have to hunt under when they wanted to travel to the MARs zone! And then hunt the rest of the time in their home state or the area they live in Michigan where they do not have to abide by MARs regs.


----------



## FREEPOP

bioactive said:


> When you have a herd in which 0.6% of males are adults compared to about 15% of females in the harvest, you have an example of a severely depleted resource.
> 
> I said nothing about deer in general, which is a resource, but was referring to the male cohort, which is also a resource.


You said nothing about any cohort, you said "depleted resource". 

It is and has been a renewable resource for a 100 years. Again, your claims are false.

Please spin again.


----------



## mbrewer

bioactive said:


> When you have a herd in which 0.6% of males are adults compared to about 15% of females in the harvest, you have an example of a severely depleted resource.
> 
> I said nothing about deer in general, which is a resource, but was referring to the male cohort, which is also a resource.


What standard are you using to determine what is or isn't an adult buck? For purposes of this discussion the MDNR definition is the one most appropriate. Does yours differ?


----------



## Waif

bioactive said:


> Extremely poor example in which outcomes are different for some (greater wealth) but not others (average wage).
> 
> In the case of APRs no one is singled out to pay. All operate under the same rules.
> 
> If you used the example that the majority (average wage) wanted to raise taxes on themselves AND the wealthy, the analogy would be more apropos.


"Poor" example. That's rich.
A percentile debate rather than resulting dollar amount makes for best contention.
An even rate of for example 20% for all leaves those with greater access to a resource(tangible liquid assets for example in a tax case representing current access to yearlings) conceding what has been acceptable to them all along while being told it is for the good of all till everyone has an increase in value of that resource.

It's fiat after all and not finite in quantity or value to the majority except where called such by those not able to control it's perceived value.


And it is percentages of age classes in A.P.R. debate assigned value by whom?
.

Perhaps a poor choice of example of taxes.. by the majority asking for the minority to give up something they already have so others have more of it. Similar process though. As well as a debate when claims of it being a way to even things out for everyone are presented...


How about tiger shrimp should be a certain size, and until law passes stating such ,someone stands at the end of the buffet and chastises the patrons who choose smaller shrimp?

Hope you are well Bio and your time afield is pleasurable!
Appreciate your sharing knowledge of deer and habitat.


----------



## bioactive

FREEPOP said:


> You said nothing about any cohort, you said "depleted resource".
> 
> It is and has been a renewable resource for a 100 years. Again, your claims are false.
> 
> Please spin again.


Funny, I thought this thread was about bucks and APRs. Since bucks are the resource we are discussing, seems like a given that I was discussing bucks and therefore you are off topic. 

Adult bucks are a severely depleted resource in much of our state.


----------



## Waif

QDMAMAN said:


> You're a pecker?


I'm a pecker, he's a pecker,she's a pecker, we're a pecker..
Wouldn't you like to be a pecker too?


----------



## bioactive

mbrewer said:


> What standard are you using to determine what is or isn't an adult buck? For purposes of this discussion the MDNR definition is the one most appropriate. Does yours differ?


I am using a biologist's definition. Maturity is reached at 5.5 years old.


----------



## brushbuster

bioactive said:


> Funny, I thought this thread was about bucks and APRs. Since bucks are the resource we are discussing, seems like a given that I was discussing bucks and therefore you are off topic.
> 
> Adult bucks are a severely depleted resource in much of our state.


I'm no scientist but


----------



## DirtySteve

SCOOTERBUM said:


> No way.


No way to what? I made a few points there including compromises.


----------



## SCOOTERBUM

5.5 yo and the law of diminishing returns. Think carrying capacity, and reduction of herd size.


----------



## hartman756

bioactive said:


> I am using a biologist's definition. Maturity is reached at 5.5 years old.


So now you are saying we will have a bunch 5.5 year old bucks to hunt as a result of MARs ? :lol:


----------



## mbrewer

bioactive said:


> I am using a biologist's definition. Maturity is reached at 5.5 years old.


You're sending mixed messages. Mature and Adult are not the same thing.


----------



## sniper

Has anyone noticed how big Max357 has gone silent (mandated I'm sure) and the Scoot has reappeared?...Things that make you go hmm....Carry on fellas.


----------



## FREEPOP

bioactive said:


> Funny, I thought this thread was about bucks and APRs. Since bucks are the resource we are discussing, seems like a given that I was discussing bucks and therefore you are off topic.
> 
> Adult bucks are a severely depleted resource in much of our state.


Depleted when compared to when?

Not compered to whom.

The deer in our state are a viable renewable resource and history has proven that.


----------



## beer and nuts

So all these "mature" 3.5 and 4.5 year old everybody claims coming back from Ohio/Missouri/wherever are now just youngins by definition!? Ohhhh that's right...makes sense now.. Bio, shot one most likely is a deer that is 5.5 years old...so now he can claim hero hunter by definition to everybody else. haha.


----------



## FREEPOP

beer and nuts said:


> So all these "mature" 3.5 and 4.5 year old everybody claims coming back from Ohio/Missouri/wherever are now just youngins by definition!? Ohhhh that's right...makes sense now.. Bio, shot one most likely is a deer that is 5.5 years old...so now he can claim hero hunter by definition to everybody else. haha.


In the end I believe all this comes down to is a chest thumping contest anyway


----------



## motdean

bioactive said:


> There is a false assumption that the same hunter would not have been successful under aprs.
> 
> Again it is no different than any other limit on any other game animal
> 
> BTW. I do not think many opposed to APRs are selfish. Certainly not you. That was aimed directly at 357 who clearly has selfish antlerphilic motives.



Thanks, Bio.

I am trying to make a point with this video. I started a thread last year (I believe) about how we as game managers and deer hunters can find a middle ground. That thread was an epic flop.

Do people believe that there is room for give and take on the APR debate that might make 90% of the people happy? Would allowing youth to shoot the deer of their choice be a point of compromise? Would allowing seniors to do the same be another one? 

After that thread, I am doubtful......However, I really, REALLY believe that the sport will eventually require us to come together.


----------



## TLS032

GDLUCK said:


> oh I'm on base. Funny this came up. I was talking to a lady at work just today. Single Mom. maybe makes $50K. son 26. working. living at home. just aged out of moms health insurance. pays no rent. . mom pay cell phone. mom feed and clothes. he just bought a new pickup, mom pays insurance. i was suprised to learn he started hunting . has a new bow, shotgun, rifle, couple handguns, boat. The APR movement.
> 
> REPEAT - future looks bright.....................


First of all GDLUCK, that was probably the most ignorant post I have seen on this site in quite some time. Lets completely categorize the entire population of young individuals under 30 years old based upon one mothers inability to take her son off of her nipple. The APR movement has nothing to do with how one young, immature individual spends his money. If you truly believe APR is the reasoning for Generations Y's lack of budget planning, my best advice for you is to go read a book. Sorry for being so crude, but statements like that show a complete lack of knowledge.




Dadof2 said:


> Wow. Intelligence is flowing. Judge a generation of young hunters by one example you spoke with. Perhaps his mother should quit enabling him. Even after all that he probably still has some trigger restraint....APR's the future does INDEED look bright. My brother just turned 25 and his group of buddies don't pull the trigger unless it's a mature whitetail. Many of them work damn hard as well.


I happened to be one of the buddies of dadof2's brother. I have massive amounts of respect for how they both hunt and the decision of what they harvest. They have been using a restriction method of there own well before APR came in effect to the 12 counties as well as myself. To me, there are a ton of variables that must happen in order for APR to produce Quality Mature Whitetails. The kind myself and others in the circle I hunt with like to pull the trigger on. My personal experiences have proven to me in areas I hunt, that APR have had a great impact on the increased the amount of 2.5 and even 3.5 year old buck sightings. With that said, I do not believe APR is the only reason for this. In 2013 and 2014 Antrim county farmers were not able to harvest a lot of there corn crops. In turn, we all know that this will become a supreme bedding area for intelligent whitetails. Thus, more bucks will not be shot as they do not need to leave that standing corn until it is dark. Now with 2015, most farmers had there corn off before opening day of the rifle season. This is going to significantly increase the amount of mature buck sightings and harvests. Now with those two influences working in conjunction with one another, we are going to have a bolstered perception of how well APR is really working. I am NOT saying APR isn't doing anything, I truly believe it has done a great job of its initial purpose, increasing the overall age of the buck herd, but to think APR is the answer to producing 4.5 year old and older whitetails is absurd. I am a APR supporter but probably for more selfish reasons than anything. Yes, I am a big buck hunter. I like to see mature whitetails. Do I publicly slander the person that shoots a basket rack 1.5 old 8 point.....No. Do I chuckle to myself on the inside.....Yes.

My selfish reasoning's for being an APR supporter are as simple as this. It bothers me to see someone come up for two days of rifle season and blast the young bucks at first light of opening day that I let go all of bow season. If it is one of their first five bucks, I couldn't be happier for them. But if that is the 15th basket 6 or 8 point, I start to get annoyed. It bothers me to see blaze orange army of hunters who don't really care about the overall deer herd shoot anything and everything in sight. Whether its a button buck or a 140" trophy. Am I happy for them, generally yes. If the overall majority of hunters want to see larger bucks, than the overall majority should be granted that right. Just like a lot of people here write "if you don't like my posts then don't read them" If you don't like the way I hunt and the viewpoints of how I hunt, pack your stuff and go to another part of the country. I like having the ability to watch numerous amounts of young bucks walk by my stands all year long. That is encouraging to me. I like watching deer grow old and see how their characteristics change from one year to another. I have no problems admitting I selfishly hunt older whitetails. It is a personal challenge for me to become better every year and shoot older deer. If you think hunting 2.5 year old whitetails is hard, try going after the 3.5 or even a 4.5. My guess is some will get discouraged and go back to shooting what makes them happy. GREAT for them. Do what makes you happy. But for the people who TRULY enjoy the challenge of deer hunting, I think you will become instantly hooked. To me, APR will help my dream of hunting mature bucks more regularly become a reality. APR by itself will NOT make that happen, but when my neighbors are forced to pass young bucks, those bucks have another year to get smarter. When those bucks get smarter, they will soon find the habitat I have made/improved, the food I have provided and the pressure I have limited on the properties I hunt, will in turn GREATLY increase my chances of holding multiple mature whitetails on my property. Once those 2.5 year old deer find my property, I have a hard time telling myself that APR didn't have a large part in letting those deer get old and smart enough to find the right habitat to grow older in.

Munsterldnr, I have read a lot of your posts. You are extremely well read and have a lot of great knowledge to share. I respect your side of the story and would love to grab a case of beer to talk about the grand scheme of whitetail hunting. And to be honest, I am slightly worried how this is all going to pan out, but if I don't ever write anything on here to question others, I will never know what the true experiences are for down to earth real people. With that said, I have a different opinion from a post in a different thread you wrote.(Sorry I know I'm hopping around) I have not read this whole thread, as I feel a lot of these APR threads are redundant, but if I'm correct, your main question was how does the sharing of internet pictures prove APR is working compared to the pictures of non-APR counties? You are 100% correct. You simply cannot draw a concrete conclusion as to whether or not they are working based upon pictures from the internet. There will ALWAYS be people who practice Deer Management(whatever your final management goal is) and will in turn typically shoot quality bucks. Also, there will ALWAYS be people who just get plain lucky. Does not matter if they are in APR or not. To me, APR is a small ingredient in the overall recipe for success. From what I concluded from your posts in the NW 13 Big Buck thread is that you are not a APR fan. You have lived it for over 10 years now and have seen what it can do to the overall herd. Yes you are correct, you can start to see a decline in buck numbers. Not doubting that. To me as hunters, we have failed to educate other hunters as to how APR can positively and negatively effect the overall herd. That fault is on all of us. My question to not just you, but to anyone who has said on here that they are continually seeing lower doe and buck numbers, whether it be in APR or non-APR counties, what have individuals done to improve your habitat? From giving deer a safe and secure place to rest their head during the hunting seasons, along with providing them with quality midday browse and quality morning and evening social food sources that deer desperately need. What have the same individuals done to reduce the overall stress and pressure on the deer herd they hunt? If people do in fact practice these hunting tactics, then I would love to hear from everyone how, what and why they do these practices. To me, if individuals have done the improvements necessary to promote their land as the best deer habitat around and are still seeing a decline in numbers, that is the BEST kind of proof there is. Those are the types of instances we need to hear about to in order to accurately depict whether or not certain practices are working(APR,QDM, whatever it may be) To say there is a decline in numbers while continually sitting in the exact same deer blind year in and year out with no improvements made to the surrounding areas of the property the individual hunts is just plain naive. That goes for public land as well. If people are seeing a serious decline in numbers but yet a few miles down the road other hunters are seeing large amounts of deer, something tells me the public land five miles down the road has had some changes to it to positively effect the overall attractiveness to deer. I'm not going to go into the details of what variables took place for those deer to move down the road as I would be writing for a very long time.


----------



## TLS032

Continuation from my previous post...

You said APR has absolutely no positive effects on the deer heard, I disagree. I do not have any scientific reasoning behind that, rather just my opinion. If people would like to slander me for any of my statements, by all means. Please do. I have large shoulders. I am NOT trying to change anyone's opinions, rather just share my own. 

The older bucks get, the wiser they get. When bucks get wiser typically from what I have seen, they get more dominant. When a buck with great genes has the ability to live for 4.5 years and pass those genes on accordingly, he will start to take away breeding opportunities from smaller adolescent bucks who have poorer genes. Especially is the case with there is a multitude of mature(4.5 and older) bucks. Sometimes, that older buck will beat the younger bucks down until they die. If you don't believe me, go ask an experienced Kansas hunter what their season is like. When those younger, naive and weaker bucks get weeded out, you start to get a gene in both bucks and does that is a stronger, smarter and overall healthier animal(In my opinion). When you start to see this gene mixed with the other dominant buck genes, in my eyes, the health of the herd starts to improve. Does it take some gruesome deaths which negatively effect the overall health, yes. Again, I am NOT EVER EVER EVER saying Michigan can be what Kansas can be. But I truly believe part of why Kansas has the continual success is due to the fact mature bucks dominate the breeding grounds. Leaving no breeding rights for young, weak bucks. Please share your thoughts on this as I would greatly appreciate to hear your opinions. Not being sarcastic. I ask you these questions Munsterldnr cause I believe you have the knowledge and the broad shoulders to maturely ponder what I am saying and give constructive rebuttals on how you feel differently or the same. Not because I want to directly pick on you as an individual.

With that said, I ask everyone to give their opinions on the topics I have just talked about. I'm not here to start a controversy over anything or to have people stray off the topics I brought up. And for the love, please don't start to make personal attacks on one another over something that has aboslutely nothing to do being a Michigan Sportsman. I thoroughly enjoy hearing well thought out ideas and practices. If I didn't, I would never be the hunter I am today.

With all of this said, sorry this post is so freaking long. Did not realize it until I went back through to read it. Guess I should post more often so I don't ramble on.


----------



## johnhunter

beer and nuts said:


> So all these "mature" 3.5 and 4.5 year old everybody claims coming back from Ohio/Missouri/wherever are now just youngins by definition!? .....


Who exactly referred to a 3.5 year old buck as being mature? Please provide an example. 

Or are you making this up?


----------



## hartman756

TLS032 said:


> With all of this said, sorry this post is so freaking long. Did not realize it until I went back through to read it. Guess I should post more often so I don't ramble on.


Yes TLS your post was_ "freaking long"_ but I read it all and instead of picking apart what I agree with and what I don't I will just say it was worth reading .


----------



## beer and nuts

> Who exactly referred to a 3.5 year old buck as being mature? Please provide an example.
> 
> Or are you making this up?


 hahaha....your kidding right!? Waste your own time looking back over threads...might be the stupidest comment yet!?


----------



## devilsbuck

farmlegend said:


> Who exactly referred to a 3.5 year old buck as being mature? Please provide an example.
> 
> Or are you making this up?


Unfortunately Michigan hunters call 3.5 year olds mature. 
They probably are the most matured bucks available, but not yet fully mature. 
In every state I have hunted most locals will tell you if you kill a 3.5 that it is a " decent " buck. ( they never look sincere either)


----------



## pescadero

bioactive said:


> So yes, the APR movement has been very clear, we want more Michigan hunters to have an easier opportunity to harvest bigger, older bucks.
> 
> Now, what is wrong with that?


The high likelihood of reduction in overall success rate, buck success rate, increase in hunter days hunted per deer, and increase in hunter days hunted per buck.

If you can give me an easier opportunity to harvest bigger, older bucks - _*without decreasing my overall success rate, without decreasing my buck success rate, without increasing hunter days hunted per deer, and without increasing hunter days hunted per buck*_ - then there is nothing wrong with it.


----------



## beer and nuts

> Unfortunately Michigan hunters call 3.5 year olds mature.
> They probably are the most matured bucks available, but not yet fully mature.
> In every state I have hunted most locals will tell you if you kill a 3.5 that it is a " decent " buck. ( they never look sincere either)


 God this is such BS. All states the majority of the harvest is 2.5 year olds or less. And the vast majority is 3.5 year old or less. Most locals in farm country states will tell you to kill every deer you see and quit trophy hunting...


----------



## Waif

TLS032 said:


> Continuation from my previous post...
> 
> You said APR has absolutely no positive effects on the deer heard, I disagree. I do not have any scientific reasoning behind that, rather just my opinion. If people would like to slander me for any of my statements, by all means. Please do. I have large shoulders. I am NOT trying to change anyone's opinions, rather just share my own.
> 
> The older bucks get, the wiser they get. When bucks get wiser typically from what I have seen, they get more dominant. When a buck with great genes has the ability to live for 4.5 years and pass those genes on accordingly, he will start to take away breeding opportunities from smaller adolescent bucks who have poorer genes. Especially is the case with there is a multitude of mature(4.5 and older) bucks. Sometimes, that older buck will beat the younger bucks down until they die. If you don't believe me, go ask an experienced Kansas hunter what their season is like. When those younger, naive and weaker bucks get weeded out, you start to get a gene in both bucks and does that is a stronger, smarter and overall healthier animal(In my opinion). When you start to see this gene mixed with the other dominant buck genes, in my eyes, the health of the herd starts to improve. Does it take some gruesome deaths which negatively effect the overall health, yes. Again, I am NOT EVER EVER EVER saying Michigan can be what Kansas can be. But I truly believe part of why Kansas has the continual success is due to the fact mature bucks dominate the breeding grounds. Leaving no breeding rights for young, weak bucks. Please share your thoughts on this as I would greatly appreciate to hear your opinions. Not being sarcastic. I ask you these questions Munsterldnr cause I believe you have the knowledge and the broad shoulders to maturely ponder what I am saying and give constructive rebuttals on how you feel differently or the same. Not because I want to directly pick on you as an individual.
> 
> With that said, I ask everyone to give their opinions on the topics I have just talked about. I'm not here to start a controversy over anything or to have people stray off the topics I brought up. And for the love, please don't start to make personal attacks on one another over something that has aboslutely nothing to do being a Michigan Sportsman. I thoroughly enjoy hearing well thought out ideas and practices. If I didn't, I would never be the hunter I am today.
> 
> With all of this said, sorry this post is so freaking long. Did not realize it until I went back through to read it. Guess I should post more often so I don't ramble on.



Bucks getting through the gauntlet regardless of age are the only way to reduce the dearth.
Only reduce it in theory though because the goal is to kill them.

Areas vary. However in those where an individual deer is vulnerable(seen by multiple hunters) the odds fall quickly as their ranks are thinned to seldom if ever seeing four-four and a half years of age.

Given the number of hunters ,and despite the increase in smarts you credit older bucks with,despite vulnerability during the rut when season is open... what is the greatest theoretical percentile of bucks making it to four years of age?
I'm not saying trying to get age on bucks is any ones waste of consideration, but that at the top end greater restriction needs to be established if any appreciable number of old bucks..say five and six year olds will exist enough or at all depending on location..
A.P.R.'s are generally acknowledged as the best way to get those who can not age bucks yet desire older ones to pass more frying sized ones. Too for those who would kill them being restricted of course.
Their graduation if law required it would then expose them the following year to legal removal in the majority of cases leaving the goal of greater aging to maturity/( 5-6 year olds) well shy of achieved.

Restriction of access in large geographical area by draws with quota's and enforced regulation allowing maturity
can produce higher results than leaving two and a half and three year olds as legal targets to high numbers of hunters...at least it has been done elsewhere though I'm no fan of comparisons with other states beyond general ones and do not seek to be another state.
Graduating bucks beyond yearlings ,despite their improved reaction to hunting pressure leaves few outside of remote areas unseen during a long season including an active breeding bucks most vulnerable time.
Being slightly conditioned to indifference when exposed to hunters for two years will thin out more of the confident ones pretty quick when their age class hits around three years old.
Again short of your goals .
A fraction through the gauntlet again but how many compared to hunters who desire them?
Any is better than none but some one may feel the same about killing younger deer.
A.P.R,'s are something towards getting some age on bucks. But not the answer to having enough to satisfy the majority of hunters a kill of a five year old or older in any great percentage.

What percentage is worth fighting for?


----------



## pescadero

bioactive said:


> I
> 
> PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTION HONESTLY.
> 
> Would you rather fish on a lake where the average walleye is 2 lbs. and challenge yourself by trying for a 5 pounder, or would you rather fish on water with an average size of 5 pounds, and challenge yourself by going for a 10 pounder?


Neither.

I'd prefer to fish a lake full of 8-9" yellow lake perch where I can limit out in an hour and make a good meal, or a lake full of hand sized bluegills sitting on their beds...


----------



## Waif

devilsbuck said:


> Unfortunately Michigan hunters call 3.5 year olds mature.
> They probably are the most matured bucks available, but not yet fully mature.
> In every state I have hunted most locals will tell you if you kill a 3.5 that it is a " decent " buck. ( they never look sincere either)


A definition meaning more than just mature; or agreeing on what mature means might help..
It has been argued as sexually mature often enough..
Optimum potential is not necessarily age based(though certainly not 3 1/.2 as an example).
Decent, now there's a definition that is understandable. Ouch.


----------



## TLS032

Waif said:


> Bucks getting through the gauntlet regardless of age are the only way to reduce the dearth.
> Only reduce it in theory though because the goal is to kill them.
> 
> Areas vary. However in those where an individual deer is vulnerable(seen by multiple hunters) the odds fall quickly as their ranks are thinned to seldom if ever seeing four-four and a half years of age.
> 
> Given the number of hunters ,and despite the increase in smarts you credit older bucks with,despite vulnerability during the rut when season is open... what is the greatest theoretical percentile of bucks making it to four years of age?
> I'm not saying trying to get age on bucks is any ones waste of consideration, but that at the top end greater restriction needs to be established if any appreciable number of old bucks..say five and six year olds will exist enough or at all depending on location..
> A.P.R.'s are generally acknowledged as the best way to get those who can not age bucks yet desire older ones to pass more frying sized ones. Too for those who would kill them being restricted of course.
> Their graduation if law required it would then expose them the following year to legal removal in the majority of cases leaving the goal of greater aging to maturity/( 5-6 year olds) well shy of achieved.
> 
> Restriction of access in large geographical area by draws with quota's and enforced regulation allowing maturity
> can produce higher results than leaving two and a half and three year olds as legal targets to high numbers of hunters...at least it has been done elsewhere though I'm no fan of comparisons with other states beyond general ones and do not seek to be another state.
> Graduating bucks beyond yearlings ,despite their improved reaction to hunting pressure leaves few outside of remote areas unseen during a long season including an active breeding bucks most vulnerable time.
> Being slightly conditioned to indifference when exposed to hunters for two years will thin out more of the confident ones pretty quick when their age class hits around three years old.
> Again short of your goals .
> A fraction through the gauntlet again but how many compared to hunters who desire them?
> Any is better than none but some one may feel the same about killing younger deer.
> A.P.R,'s are something towards getting some age on bucks. But not the answer to having enough to satisfy the majority of hunters a kill of a five year old or older in any great percentage.
> 
> What percentage is worth fighting for?


I agree with you Waif. It is extremely hard to have enough people in the areas most of us hunt that want to pass the 3.5 year old deer. The greatest theoretical percentage for me is probably a lot different than most. I am not trying to be arrogant or self loath. I am blessed with a large enough piece of property to where we can actually hold multiple bucks for multiple years. With that being said, I do not have complete control over what is taken off of the property I hunt. Example, this year out of the 3 deer taken on one of our properties, we concluded 2 of the deer were 3.5 years old with our biggest one being 4.5 years old. As of now, 4.5 years old is our target age and I would like to think in Northern Michigan that is a decent deer. We also have a deer that we believe to be 4.5 years old and have been watching him for two years now. Most bucks we see on the property on camera and while in the stand, once they find there fall home range, very rarely do we see them go off of the property during daylight hours, even during the rut. 

You are 100% correct if we want to consistently see 5.5 year old bucks, much more is going to have to take place in order to achieve that. It will take an overall group decision on choosing what not to shoot in a given area as well as that group practicing those decisions regularly. Whether that be through DMU restrictions or other avenues such as co-ops.


----------



## motdean

DirtySteve said:


> I started to watch the video until I saw you posted a link to the entire espisode.....no time to watch 30 mins at the moment. I saw the episode was going to show a youth hunt specifically. I don't hear anyone from the apr crowd asking to take away or change the youth hunt. There are a few people out there against the youth hunt but they are from both sides of the apr argument.
> 
> Me personally.... I am for a trial period with APR restrictions statewide and leave youth hunt alone. I am for expanding the youth hunt beyond two days as well. Other states have much longer youth hunts. If you had to give youths the right to shoot any buck any season to get aprs passed I could be talked into that......but I disagree that it would be necasary. The idea here is that within 3-5yrs we are shooting the same percentage of buck post apr as prior apr. So adults or youth aren't being restricted. If that doesn't happen after a trial period I will be one of the guys asking to get rid of apr's.



Fair enough. Thanks for the additional insight.


----------



## mbrewer

TLS032 said:


> First of all GDLUCK, that was probably the most ignorant post I have seen on this site in quite some time. Lets completely categorize the entire population of young individuals under 30 years old based upon one mothers inability to take her son off of her nipple. The APR movement has nothing to do with how one young, immature individual spends his money. If you truly believe APR is the reasoning for Generations Y's lack of budget planning, my best advice for you is to go read a book. Sorry for being so crude, but statements like that show a complete lack of knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I happened to be one of the buddies of dadof2's brother. I have massive amounts of respect for how they both hunt and the decision of what they harvest. They have been using a restriction method of there own well before APR came in effect to the 12 counties as well as myself. To me, there are a ton of variables that must happen in order for APR to produce Quality Mature Whitetails. The kind myself and others in the circle I hunt with like to pull the trigger on. My personal experiences have proven to me in areas I hunt, that APR have had a great impact on the increased the amount of 2.5 and even 3.5 year old buck sightings. With that said, I do not believe APR is the only reason for this. In 2013 and 2014 Antrim county farmers were not able to harvest a lot of there corn crops. In turn, we all know that this will become a supreme bedding area for intelligent whitetails. Thus, more bucks will not be shot as they do not need to leave that standing corn until it is dark. Now with 2015, most farmers had there corn off before opening day of the rifle season. This is going to significantly increase the amount of mature buck sightings and harvests. Now with those two influences working in conjunction with one another, we are going to have a bolstered perception of how well APR is really working. I am NOT saying APR isn't doing anything, I truly believe it has done a great job of its initial purpose, increasing the overall age of the buck herd, but to think APR is the answer to producing 4.5 year old and older whitetails is absurd. I am a APR supporter but probably for more selfish reasons than anything. Yes, I am a big buck hunter. I like to see mature whitetails. Do I publicly slander the person that shoots a basket rack 1.5 old 8 point.....No. Do I chuckle to myself on the inside.....Yes.
> 
> My selfish reasoning's for being an APR supporter are as simple as this. It bothers me to see someone come up for two days of rifle season and blast the young bucks at first light of opening day that I let go all of bow season. If it is one of their first five bucks, I couldn't be happier for them. But if that is the 15th basket 6 or 8 point, I start to get annoyed. It bothers me to see blaze orange army of hunters who don't really care about the overall deer herd shoot anything and everything in sight. Whether its a button buck or a 140" trophy. Am I happy for them, generally yes. If the overall majority of hunters want to see larger bucks, than the overall majority should be granted that right. Just like a lot of people here write "if you don't like my posts then don't read them" If you don't like the way I hunt and the viewpoints of how I hunt, pack your stuff and go to another part of the country. I like having the ability to watch numerous amounts of young bucks walk by my stands all year long. That is encouraging to me. I like watching deer grow old and see how their characteristics change from one year to another. I have no problems admitting I selfishly hunt older whitetails. It is a personal challenge for me to become better every year and shoot older deer. If you think hunting 2.5 year old whitetails is hard, try going after the 3.5 or even a 4.5. My guess is some will get discouraged and go back to shooting what makes them happy. GREAT for them. Do what makes you happy. But for the people who TRULY enjoy the challenge of deer hunting, I think you will become instantly hooked. To me, APR will help my dream of hunting mature bucks more regularly become a reality. APR by itself will NOT make that happen, but when my neighbors are forced to pass young bucks, those bucks have another year to get smarter. When those bucks get smarter, they will soon find the habitat I have made/improved, the food I have provided and the pressure I have limited on the properties I hunt, will in turn GREATLY increase my chances of holding multiple mature whitetails on my property. Once those 2.5 year old deer find my property, I have a hard time telling myself that APR didn't have a large part in letting those deer get old and smart enough to find the right habitat to grow older in.
> 
> Munsterldnr, I have read a lot of your posts. You are extremely well read and have a lot of great knowledge to share. I respect your side of the story and would love to grab a case of beer to talk about the grand scheme of whitetail hunting. And to be honest, I am slightly worried how this is all going to pan out, but if I don't ever write anything on here to question others, I will never know what the true experiences are for down to earth real people. With that said, I have a different opinion from a post in a different thread you wrote.(Sorry I know I'm hopping around) I have not read this whole thread, as I feel a lot of these APR threads are redundant, but if I'm correct, your main question was how does the sharing of internet pictures prove APR is working compared to the pictures of non-APR counties? You are 100% correct. You simply cannot draw a concrete conclusion as to whether or not they are working based upon pictures from the internet. There will ALWAYS be people who practice Deer Management(whatever your final management goal is) and will in turn typically shoot quality bucks. Also, there will ALWAYS be people who just get plain lucky. Does not matter if they are in APR or not. To me, APR is a small ingredient in the overall recipe for success. From what I concluded from your posts in the NW 13 Big Buck thread is that you are not a APR fan. You have lived it for over 10 years now and have seen what it can do to the overall herd. Yes you are correct, you can start to see a decline in buck numbers. Not doubting that. To me as hunters, we have failed to educate other hunters as to how APR can positively and negatively effect the overall herd. That fault is on all of us. My question to not just you, but to anyone who has said on here that they are continually seeing lower doe and buck numbers, whether it be in APR or non-APR counties, what have individuals done to improve your habitat? From giving deer a safe and secure place to rest their head during the hunting seasons, along with providing them with quality midday browse and quality morning and evening social food sources that deer desperately need. What have the same individuals done to reduce the overall stress and pressure on the deer herd they hunt? If people do in fact practice these hunting tactics, then I would love to hear from everyone how, what and why they do these practices. To me, if individuals have done the improvements necessary to promote their land as the best deer habitat around and are still seeing a decline in numbers, that is the BEST kind of proof there is. Those are the types of instances we need to hear about to in order to accurately depict whether or not certain practices are working(APR,QDM, whatever it may be) To say there is a decline in numbers while continually sitting in the exact same deer blind year in and year out with no improvements made to the surrounding areas of the property the individual hunts is just plain naive. That goes for public land as well. If people are seeing a serious decline in numbers but yet a few miles down the road other hunters are seeing large amounts of deer, something tells me the public land five miles down the road has had some changes to it to positively effect the overall attractiveness to deer. I'm not going to go into the details of what variables took place for those deer to move down the road as I would be writing for a very long time.


OMG and a continuation that I haven't gotten to yet. 

Clearly you have strong opinions and I appreciate the honesty but every time you got on a roll you'd slam on the breaks with a giant contradiction. It must be maddening to try and follow you somewhere. :2cents:


----------



## Waif

TLS032 said:


> I agree with you Waif. It is extremely hard to have enough people in the areas most of us hunt that want to pass the 3.5 year old deer. The greatest theoretical percentage for me is probably a lot different than most. I am not trying to be arrogant or self loath. I am blessed with a large enough piece of property to where we can actually hold multiple bucks for multiple years. With that being said, I do not have complete control over what is taken off of the property I hunt. Example, this year out of the 3 deer taken on one of our properties, we concluded 2 of the deer were 3.5 years old with our biggest one being 4.5 years old. As of now, 4.5 years old is our target age and I would like to think in Northern Michigan that is a decent deer. We also have a deer that we believe to be 4.5 years old and have been watching him for two years now. Most bucks we see on the property on camera and while in the stand, once they find there fall home range, very rarely do we see them go off of the property during daylight hours, even during the rut.
> 
> You are 100% correct if we want to consistently see 5.5 year old bucks, much more is going to have to take place in order to achieve that. It will take an overall group decision on choosing what not to shoot in a given area as well as that group practicing those decisions regularly. Whether that be through DMU restrictions or other avenues such as co-ops.


An example of partial success involves friends who have evolved through opportunity to pursuing older bucks.
It has been an ongoing process but the biggest reason standards have been raised is sighting older bucks.
They remain tolerant of my current less lofty ambitions, one reason is friendship, but another is my not being unfamiliar with their goals in my past.
Part of their ability/opportunity has to be credited to restrictions by law.
Early season has more recruitment of the previous seasons yearlings.
Broken racks being more common but too more interaction among those bucks as well.

I try not to view any success attributed to greater restrictions as a call to hit those areas. They are getting hit well enough to not promise what would in this state be considered old bucks.

With unknown age of largest buck estimated around three and a half years old though...far to go to see greatest potential in that limited area, if possible.

I'm not particular if young bucks get killed, but do realize there would be bigger racks or at least more older bucks if off limits when younger.
Interesting to follow the contrast of what constitutes success with bucks and their management among hunters.
Older bucks still catch the eye and imagination of all it seems , though few hunters really exercise restraint beyond three year olds.
Others remain content with any buck.


----------



## johnhunter

beer and nuts said:


> hahaha....your kidding right!? Waste your own time looking back over threads...might be the stupidest comment yet!?


You were the one who made the ridiculous and, since you used the "s" word, "stupid" remark that "everybody" claims that 3.5 year old bucks are mature.

You were given an opportunity to support your remark. You were unable to do so, and responded with snark instead.

3.5 year old bucks are not mature. You got nothin'.


----------



## 357Maximum

sniper said:


> Has anyone noticed how big Max357 has gone silent (mandated I'm sure) and the Scoot has reappeared?...Things that make you go hmm....Carry on fellas.



The Grand River gave up 3 nice steelhead today, and I am done arguing with ya'll. Nothing more, nothing less. But by all means do continue to theorize if it gives you the warm fuzzies to do so. I am logging out, not sure if I will be back. If I want self induced trauma and anguish I can always go stick my hand in the garbage disposal afterall.


----------



## devilsbuck

pescadero said:


> The high likelihood of reduction in overall success rate, buck success rate, increase in hunter days hunted per deer, and increase in hunter days hunted per buck.
> 
> If you can give me an easier opportunity to harvest bigger, older bucks - _*without decreasing my overall success rate, without decreasing my buck success rate, without increasing hunter days hunted per deer, and without increasing hunter days hunted per buck*_ - then there is nothing wrong with it.


A friend of mine doesn't shoot bucks under 3.5 for the past 12-15 years. 
This man kills a big buck every year. 
He doesn't hunt anymore than he did when he killed any buck. 
In fact he hunts much less. 
Since this practice he has not had a loss in any of what you mentioned. 
He hunts less than 10 days a year.
He kills one buck a year and a certain number of does depending on the population. Since 2012 when EHD hit hard that number has been zero. 
An easier opportunity by simply hunting less and hunting the right conditions rather than just whenever.
Less time away from home, work and family. 
And meat in the freezer and antlers on the wall.


----------



## jr28schalm

Sure 357, the spikes are rutting on your little island and your haveing a hard time scoreing.......lmfao


----------



## sniper

357Maximum said:


> The Grand River gave up 3 nice steelhead today, and I am done arguing with ya'll. Nothing more, nothing less. But by all means do continue to theorize if it gives you the warm fuzzies to do so. I am logging out, not sure if I will be back. If I want self induced trauma and anguish I can always go stick my hand in the garbage disposal afterall.


You need to fish more!


----------



## ridgewalker

farmlegend said:


> Apex fallacy. Drawing conclusions about a general population based on characteristics of outliers at the end of the bell curve.


Nice try but no cigar! Every word in my post is accurate and you are aware of that. There are bucks and pictures of bucks every single year to prove that. Check out the winter wheat fields, at least in our area, in January and you will continue to see some mature bucks despite the early shedding. Your mathematics picture is false in this case.


----------



## ridgewalker

When the restriction group talks about "mature" deer they are talking about deer that have achieved their potential antler mass. I believe a better description would deal with length between eye and nose, pot belly, and rectangular belly. However it would be difficult to categorize those characteristics for the average hunter. Another way to describe targeting "mature deer" would be "trophy hunting" IMO. 

Merriam-Webster defines "mature" as 1) having or showing the emotional or mental qualities of an adult; 2) having a fully grown or developed body; 3) having a reached a final or desired state

The restriction group quantifies or rates a "mature" animal by antler size as do the various trophy organizations such as Pope and Young. Definition 3 is the crux of the debate: defining the desired final state of that buck that a hunter should take. Age certainly contributes to definition 2 but it is certainly not the only factor. There are also genetics and nutrition.

The debate should focus on the following questions IMO: What is really best for the overall health of the herd, for the health of the habitat and the other species that share that habitat? How do we define an appropriate animal for hunting purposes (ie. antler size, quality of meat, quantity of meat, weight, age, etc.)? Should the definition or typing of a hunter and his or her interests be described or qualified by one special interest group or by the multiplicity of hunters and their combined interests?

When I hunt, my target animals are not chosen by a singular characteristic such as antler size. I like a younger deer for its tenderness over an older deer. By this I mean a two-three year old doe or a 3-6 point buck (2-4 year old). Would I take a 5 year old deer or older? Of course, trophy, sausage, and hamburger are always welcome. However they are not needed or required for me to have a successful hunt. For me that is the difference between the restriction MAPR crowd and myself. I believe that there are a great many hunters that feel as I do. 

Factors such as disease control, accident control, and winter kill numbers should also be included in any discussion of "what are target animals". Looking at a singular factor such as defining "mature deer" should not be the sole determiner of what we hunt.


----------



## motdean

TLS032 said:


> My selfish reasoning's for being an APR supporter are as simple as this. It bothers me to see someone come up for two days of rifle season and blast the young bucks at first light of opening day that I let go all of bow season.


TLS,

Your posts, although lengthy, were well worth reading.

What if that poor guy that you make reference to, only has two days to hunt before he has to return to work to make ends meet?

Trust me, I am also trying to put myself into the pro-APR guy's shoes... The guys that say they "want something more". My presumption is that many of them are simply bored with chasing small bucks.


----------



## johnhunter

ridgewalker said:


> Nice try but no cigar! Every word in my post is accurate and you are aware of that.


The words of your post are accurate, but your point is undeniably misleading. You have absolutely invoked the Apex Fallacy, as I have noted above.

You are clearly suggesting that there are plenty of older aged bucks to be had, and you are basing your assertion by the fact that older aged bucks do exist in the SLP. Of course they do. Lottery winners exist also, but that does not mean that they are common or that the purchase of a lottery ticket is a good bet.

Here in the SLP, our buck age structure is not good. I welcome cynics to visit large volume deer processors in the SLP the first two days of the firearms season, and then, a couple weeks later, the processor which November Sunrise visited a short distance away in West Unity, Ohio, when their gun season opens. Two different worlds. That's all.


----------



## triplelunger

Thousand!

Sent from my SM-G920V using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## bioactive

pescadero said:


> The high likelihood of reduction in overall success rate, buck success rate, increase in hunter days hunted per deer, and increase in hunter days hunted per buck.
> 
> If you can give me an easier opportunity to harvest bigger, older bucks - _*without decreasing my overall success rate, without decreasing my buck success rate, without increasing hunter days hunted per deer, and without increasing hunter days hunted per buck*_ - then there is nothing wrong with it.


What is wrong with spending more days afield?

Supposedly deer hunting is enjoyable and the point is to experience deer camp and spend time with friends and family.

Are you saying getting venison is all that matters and that it would be a bummer to spend more time hunting?

BTW, at least in Leelanau County, there was no decreased harvest rate of bucks. We will see in the other 12 counties, but it is certainly not a given that there is reduced opportunity for hunters, and it is likely that most (more than two thirds) of hunters will see it as an increased opportunity when they are asked if they want to continue, as they did in leelanau.


----------



## bioactive

pescadero said:


> Neither.
> 
> I'd prefer to fish a lake full of 8-9" yellow lake perch where I can limit out in an hour and make a good meal, or a lake full of hand sized bluegills sitting on their beds...



That wasn't the question. But I will rephrase it for you.

Would you rather fish a lake with 8-9 inch perch, or a lake with 4-5 inch perch, all else being equal?


----------



## bioactive

beer and nuts said:


> God this is such BS. All states the majority of the harvest is 2.5 year olds or less. And the vast majority is 3.5 year old or less. Most locals in farm country states will tell you to kill every deer you see and quit trophy hunting...


Don't live in farm country?

Wow! We hear about farmers like that but I know many farmers in this community that are for APRs, and when asked in the LPDMI survey the SLP survey respondents who identified themselves as farmers were more in support than the non-farmers.

It is not OK to just make stuff up you will get called out on it.


----------



## bioactive

357Maximum said:


> The Grand River gave up 3 nice steelhead today, and I am done arguing with ya'll. Nothing more, nothing less. But by all means do continue to theorize if it gives you the warm fuzzies to do so. I am logging out, not sure if I will be back. If I want self induced trauma and anguish I can always go stick my hand in the garbage disposal afterall.



How do you define "nice" steelhead? What age class were they? Any thoughts about the fact that they are protected so that you have "nice" ones to harvest? Do you feel bad that you can't legally kill the "dorks" that will never amount to anything?


----------



## Munsterlndr

bioactive said:


> BTW, at least in Leelanau County, there was no decreased harvest rate of bucks.


But there was a simultaneous increase in deer population, which could certainly mask any reduction in harvest rate spurred by regulation change.


----------



## Munsterlndr

bioactive said:


> Don't live in farm country?
> 
> Wow! We hear about farmers like that but I know many farmers in this community that are for APRs, and when asked in the LPDMI survey the SLP survey respondents who identified themselves as farmers were more in support than the non-farmers.
> 
> It is not OK to just make stuff up you will get called out on it.


Yet you call the largest lobbying group for farmers in Michigan _"the single greatest threat to deer hunting in this state"_. Selective outrage, I guess. LoL.


----------



## brushbuster

miruss said:


> Yet you think the small amount of people for MAPR's should be able to change the rules for everyone???


No, I'm pretty sure the process works the other way around. It takes 66% of the yes votes from a random survey before the DNR recommends the proposed rule change to the NRC.


----------



## Joe Archer

soggybtmboys said:


> It was regional proposal..zone 3


Thus NOT APPLICABLE to hunters in the rest of the state.... as previously pointed out by Muenster.
Unless you can come up with a state-wide source after the one he cited, Muenster wins this round of the debate.
<----<<<


----------



## soggybtmboys

Each zone responded to their prospective proposal for their prospective zone.


Joe Archer said:


> Thus NOT APPLICABLE to hunters in the rest of the state.... as previously pointed out by Muenster.
> Unless you can come up with a state-wide source after the one he cited, Muenster wins this round of the debate.
> <----<<<


It wasn't a statewide proposal, it was not needed for the survey to be statewide. Zone 2 affected area as well as zone 3 affected areas were sampled for the surveys...just like was method developed by the 1999 work group. nothing afoul with surveying the exact people whom will be affected directly by new regulation. Btw...who was on the 1999 work group that drafted the rules for APR regulation proposals and framework?


----------



## mbrewer

soggybtmboys said:


> Each zone responded to their prospective proposal for their prospective zone.
> 
> It wasn't a statewide proposal, it was not needed for the survey to be statewide. Zone 2 affected area as well as zone 3 affected areas were sampled for the surveys...just like was method developed by the 1999 work group. nothing afoul with surveying the exact people whom will be affected directly by new regulation. Btw...who was on the 1999 work group that drafted the rules for APR regulation proposals and framework?


I think you've fallen into the same trap others do. You are arguing the meaning, not the message.


----------



## brushbuster

soggybtmboys said:


> Each zone responded to their prospective proposal for their prospective zone.
> 
> It wasn't a statewide proposal, it was not needed for the survey to be statewide. Zone 2 affected area as well as zone 3 affected areas were sampled for the surveys...just like was method developed by the 1999 work group. nothing afoul with surveying the exact people whom will be affected directly by new regulation. Btw...who was on the 1999 work group that drafted the rules for APR regulation proposals and framework?


Exactly, these proposals are the only ones that matter, for the rest of you that don't understand how the process works than I just really want to know, can you keep up?


----------



## bioactive

miruss said:


> Yet you think the small amount of people for MAPR's should be able to change the rules for everyone???


Nope. I support the DNRs process, which requires 66% approval from a randomly surveyed sample of hunters from a given region. That is overkill in my opinion, but it is what it is.

There is massive support for APRs across the state.


----------



## soggybtmboys

mbrewer said:


> I think you've fallen into the same trap others do. You are arguing the meaning, not the message.


The message was clear...the majority in zone 2 and zone 3 that were surveyed wished for a change in buck management as defined by the proposals for their prospective zones. It was completely inline with the parameters set by the 1999 workgroup. Who was on the 1999 APR workgroup?


----------



## bioactive

miruss said:


> If i'm not mistaken the last time it came up for a vote it was voted down ! Except for the nw12 where they used some new tactics on who could vote .


Voted down, yes, but the majority wanted it.


----------



## bioactive

Munsterlndr said:


> The survey that you linked to was not a statewide survey of deer hunters and it's methodology excluded a large portion of Michigan deer hunters from being represented statistically in the results. If you want to measure the opinion of deer hunters in Michigan, then every hunter who purchased a license should have an equal chance of being selected to receive the survey, no? That's called a random sample. The document you linked to did not employ a truly random sample.


Ha ha. It was a relevant survey whereas the one you posted was not. The one you posted offered no concrete example for given hunters in given zones. It was completely theoretical. In contrast, the APR surveys directly propose to a hunter a rule they will have to live under, and the majority are in favor of it when put in direct terms. 

The people who received the APR surveys were a completely random sampling of survey respondents from prior years who indicated they hunted in the region.

Every single person who hunted during those prior years had an equal chance of receiving and responding to a survey. It is completely random.


----------



## bioactive

Joe Archer said:


> LOL.... THAT substantiated Muenster's claim unequivocally. NICE!
> <----<<<


It is a completely random sampling of hunters from that region.


----------



## bioactive

Joe Archer said:


> Thus NOT APPLICABLE to hunters in the rest of the state.... as previously pointed out by Muenster.
> Unless you can come up with a state-wide source after the one he cited, Muenster wins this round of the debate.
> <----<<<


There has been no statewide proposal put forth, therefore there is no relevant survey to see how people would support a proposal if it were presented. All Munster is citing is an informational survey that threw out a few ideas. People could answer yes or no to every one of those ideas that were listed, none of which were specific, concrete proposals that anybody would have to live with based on their answer.

Flawed logic.

Are you for the death penalty? Yes?

Are you for the death penalty for you if you forget to mow your lawn? No?

I thought you said you were for the death penalty? Are you a hypocrite?


If you cannot see that the most relevant surveys are the ones that the recipients knew might change the way they hunt in their area, you have some pretty big blinders on.


----------



## Joe Archer

Muenster stated that the results did not represent the majority of hunters in the state. Period. 
Who wouldn't be pro APR in the SLP? Nobody was claiming otherwise. 
<----<<<


----------



## bioactive

Munsterlndr said:


> 2012 MDNR Hunter Opinion Survey, note that MAPR's of the type included in the LPDMI initiative gained only 46% statewide support, vs. 67% for the combo license.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/Deer_Hunter_Opinion_Survey_2012_448233_7.pdf


Fascinating that you think this has deep meaning when compared to the APR surveys (the DNR biologist who does the surveys disagrees with you). So let me answer these questions in the framework in which they were placed. Keep in mind, the idea is to look at each question and answer it, but you cannot help knowing what the competing questions are.

Item 1. Keep existing rule. I would support this when it is put up against OBR for example (item 5) . I do not want OBR in MI so I would vote in favor of the existing 2 buck rule over it. Probably would have voted no opinion, but possibly oppose but only if I thought there was a sensible alternative offered. I neither support or oppose it. I would like to see something better, but that better thing was not offered as an option. 

Item 2. I would be in favor of increasing the price of a second tag. So I would vote strongly support. 

Item 3. I would probably support this one but would not strongly support it. I hate the idea of less than a 3 point on a side in the UP, but it is better than any other alternative here. Support.

Item 4. 4 points on a side everywhere in the state. I firmly oppose that. It would be wrong for the UP and NLP. Vote to strongly oppose. 

Suggestion 5. One buck rule. Strongly oppose.

Suggestion 6. Tagging button bucks with buck tag. Strongly oppose. 

Since the proposal I would like to see for Michigan was not there (Statewide APR 3/3/4 UP/NLP/SLP), I could not strongly support any of these. And I am strongly opposed to a statewide 4 point on a side. From that, are you to conclude that I don't support APRs? You would be wrong, because I do, but just not in the form stated. 

This survey has some informational comment, but has a fraction of the validity of a survey directed at people telling them that whatever their opinion is may directly lead to changing the way they hunt.


----------



## November Sunrise

bioactive said:


> Fascinating that you think this has deep meaning when compared to the APR surveys (the DNR biologist who does the surveys disagrees with you). So let me answer these questions in the framework in which they were placed. Keep in mind, the idea is to look at each question and answer it, but you cannot help knowing what the competing questions are.
> 
> Item 1. Keep existing rule. I would support this when it is put up against OBR for example (item 5) . I do not want OBR in MI so I would vote in favor of the existing 2 buck rule over it. Probably would have voted no opinion, but possibly oppose but only if I thought there was a sensible alternative offered. I neither support or oppose it. I would like to see something better, but that better thing was not offered as an option.
> 
> Item 2. I would be in favor of increasing the price of a second tag. So I would vote strongly support.
> 
> Item 3. I would probably support this one but would not strongly support it. I hate the idea of less than a 3 point on a side in the UP, but it is better than any other alternative here. Support.
> 
> Item 4. 4 points on a side everywhere in the state. I firmly oppose that. It would be wrong for the UP and NLP. Vote to strongly oppose.
> 
> Suggestion 5. One buck rule. Strongly oppose.
> 
> Suggestion 6. Tagging button bucks with buck tag. Strongly oppose.
> 
> Since the proposal I would like to see for Michigan was not there (Statewide APR 3/3/4 UP/NLP/SLP, I could not strongly support any of these.
> 
> This survey has some informational comment, but has a fraction of the validity of a survey directed at people telling them that whatever their opinion is may directly lead to changing the way they hunt.


Strong explanation. Easy to follow for anyone who may not have understood the distinction in responses.


----------



## bioactive

Joe Archer said:


> Muenster stated that the results did not represent the majority of hunters in the state. Period.
> *Who wouldn't be pro APR in the SLP? Nobody was claiming otherwise. *
> <----<<<



Odd that you say that Joe. The least support in the state for APRs comes from the SLP as can clearly be seen in the SLP LPDMI survey compared to the NLP LPDMI survey, and the NW 12 survey.


----------



## November Sunrise

bioactive said:


> Odd that you say that Joe. The least support in the state for APRs comes from the SLP as can clearly be seen in the SLP LPDMI survey compared to the NLP LPDMI survey, and the NW 12 survey.


What's your theory on why support would be higher in the NLP than SLP?


----------



## bioactive

-


November Sunrise said:


> What's your theory on why support would be higher in the NLP than SLP?


I think it has to do with the Michigan mindset and the value of an 8-point vs. a 6-point.

Even though a 4 on a side would have almost exactly the same impact in the SLP as a three on a side does in the NLP (protect just north of 70% of yearlings), there is a psychological barrier related to 4 on a side = 8-point.

Growing up, for me, the words "8-point" singled the pinnacle of success in "getting a buck". It was the threshold we wanted to reach.


----------



## DirtySteve

Joe Archer said:


> Muenster stated that the results did not represent the majority of hunters in the state. Period.
> Who wouldn't be pro APR in the SLP? Nobody was claiming otherwise.
> <----<<<



The survey Muenster showed had a majority in SLP in favor of keeping today's regulations. Bioactives survey shows a shift in favor of MAPR'S amongst SLP deer hunters
That leads me to believe there is credibility to bios statements that hunters minds are changing.

I will agree that it doesn't include the opinions of northern mi hunters but I would bet money that after the results this season there is some sort of shift in opinions towards MAPR'S in northern michigan.


----------



## Munsterlndr

soggybtmboys said:


> Hog wash....
> 
> ABSTRACT A survey was completed to determine whether hunters supported proposed mandatory Antler Point Restrictions (APR) in the southern Lower Peninsula. A key feature of the proposed mandatory regulations was changing the definition of a buck to a deer with four or more points on one antler. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) supports the voluntary implementation of APR practices on private land in Michigan. Mandatory APR are implemented by regulation only when a clear majority (>66%) of hunters support implementation. Questionnaires were sent to a random sample of hunters; 74% of hunters returned their questionnaire. About 55% of the people hunting deer in the southern Lower Peninsula supported implementing mandatory APR regulations. Support from hunters was insufficient to recommend implementation of antler point restrictions in the southern Lower Peninsula.
> 
> further.......
> 
> 
> METHODS This survey was done in accordance with guidelines developed for evaluating proposed mandatory APR regulations in Michigan (Quality Deer Management Working Group 1999). A questionnaire was sent to 2,300 randomly selected hunters from the southern Lower Peninsula. Prior surveys done to estimate support for proposed APR regulations have sampled landowners in addition to hunters. However, estimates of support have varied little between landowners and hunters in previous surveys (e.g., Frawley 2002, 2003a, 2003b). Thus, landowners were not sampled separately for the current survey. The estimate of hunter support was calculated using a stratified random sampling design that included two strata (Cochran 1977). A random sample of hunters was obtained from a list of people that indicated they had hunted in the southern Lower Peninsula during 2012 (first stratum). This list represented randomly selected people included in the annual deer harvest survey that was conducted by the Wildlife Division (Frawley 2012). An additional random sample was selected from the list of hunters from the southern Lower Peninsula that had voluntarily reported information about their deer hunting activity via the internet prior to the initiation of the annual deer harvest survey (second stratum). The random sample consisted of 2,200 people from the first stratum and 100 people from the second stratum. The stratified sampling design accounted for the varying probabilities of being selected from the strata so estimates could be reliably extrapolated from the sample to all license buyers. People receiving the questionnaire were asked to report whether they supported implementing the proposed mandatory APR regulation for the southern Lower Peninsula. Response options to the question on the proposal were “yes” or “no” (Appendix A). The percentage of support was measured by dividing the number of “yes” responses by the sum of those responses 3 indicating “yes” or “no.” People who did not provide an answer were not used to estimate support for the proposed APR regulations. Moreover, opinions of hunters that did not hunt within the southern Lower Peninsula were not included when estimating support for the proposed APR regulations. Hunters were also asked whether they owned at least 5 acres (landowners) and whether they had a farm which produced at least $1000 of agricultural products during the year (farmers) in the southern Lower Peninsula. Estimates of support for the mandatory APR regulations were calculated along with their 95% confidence limit (CL). The CL could be added and subtracted from the estimate to calculate the 95% confidence interval. The confidence interval was a measure of the precision associated with the estimate and implied that the true value would be within this interval 95 times out of 100. Estimates were not adjusted for possible response or nonresponse bias. Estimates were calculated for three different groups (1) all hunters, (2) hunters owning land, and (3) hunters that farmed in the southern Lower Peninsula. The random sample of people receiving the questionnaire included 2,300 hunters (Table 1). Questionnaires were initially mailed during mid-November 2013. Up to two follow-up questionnaires were mailed to nonrespondents.


None of which contradicts the fact that the methodology used does not employ a truly random sample. A significant number of hunters who purchased deer licenses the previous year have absolutely no chance of being selected as a recipient for the APR surveys. You can try and spin that fact any way you want but it won't go away.


----------



## Munsterlndr

DirtySteve said:


> The survey Muenster showed had a majority in SLP in favor of keeping today's regulations. Bioactives survey shows a shift in favor of MAPR'S amongst SLP deer hunters
> That leads me to believe there is credibility to bios statements that hunters minds are changing.
> 
> I will agree that it doesn't include the opinions of northern mi hunters but I would bet money that after the results this season there is some sort of shift in opinions towards MAPR'S in northern michigan.


With all due respect, you do understand that the group of hunters surveyed in the hunter opinion poll and the APR surveys are two distinctly different groups, right? The fact that the two results are different is not surprising given the fact that different methods were used to generate the two sample groups.


----------



## Munsterlndr

bioactive said:


> Ha ha. It was a relevant survey whereas the one you posted was not. The one you posted offered no concrete example for given hunters in given zones. It was completely theoretical. In contrast, the APR surveys directly propose to a hunter a rule they will have to live under, and the majority are in favor of it when put in direct terms.
> 
> The people who received the APR surveys were a completely random sampling of survey respondents from prior years who indicated they hunted in the region.
> 
> Every single person who hunted during those prior years had an equal chance of receiving and responding to a survey. It is completely random.


Um, no it is not. Again, you can keep telling yourself that but it was not a completely random sample. 

One of the strata's was totally self-selected and was not random in any way shape or form. 

The other strata was composed of of people selected from a qualified group, not all Michigan hunters. 

Every person who hunted in Michigan had an equal chance of receiving a hunter opinion survey. In order to receive an APR survey, you had to meet a number of qualifications which excluded over 80% of Michigan hunters from even being considered. You want to equate participation with a totally unrelated previous survey as being an equal chance for everyone, when it's simply not.


----------



## Munsterlndr

bioactive said:


> It is a completely random sampling of hunters from that region.


Once again, no it's not and repeating that it is does not make it so.


----------



## Waif

bioactive said:


> -
> 
> 
> I think it has to do with the Michigan mindset and the value of an 8-point vs. a 6-point.
> 
> Even though a 4 on a side would have almost exactly the same impact in the SLP as a three on a side does in the NLP (protect just north of 70% of yearlings), there is a psychological barrier related to 4 on a side = 8-point.
> 
> Growing up, for me, the words "8-point" singled the pinnacle of success in "getting a buck". It was the threshold we wanted to reach.


The Michigan mindset keeps getting repeated....yet the majority are claimed and debated to be in favor of greater restrictions.
Should that not change the definition of Michigan mindset or is the negative connotation of it the purpose ?
Sorry Bio, with all due respect there is an eight point yearling and an older eight point that has much more going on.
Yes by using points more yearlings could be passed.
Blazing away at yearling eight points though is counter productive.
A minority of yearlings perhaps having eight points? 
Perhaps, yet the greater quality of antlers vs their peers vs the peers quantity being passed still results in dead yearlings. More seems to be the goal then in promoting yearlings..vs quality again.
Change that among those graduated the following year to...quality or quantity of kills? Or both...
The desire of further graduation becomes reality of continued reduction in consecutively advanced generations 
like it does now. Just the potential of more is what's left.
The distribution state wide of the "more" at six years of age merits rigid gathering of accurate data.
Usable only if clean data exists before , and is then adjusted to compare like controls to measure the more.
Looking forward to your findings once they are released.
Quality of antlers becomes a standard in A.P.R.'s and in Q.D.M. despite the two not sharing all tenets.
Achieved in quantity, quality bucks conflict with changing the standard of managing for quantity of Michigan's herds to quality.


----------



## Munsterlndr

bioactive said:


> This survey has some informational comment, but has a fraction of the validity of a survey directed at people telling them that whatever their opinion is may directly lead to changing the way they hunt.


The Hunter Opinion survey has greater validity in terms of characterizing the levels of support for various management options on a statewide basis, as that was it's intent. 

APR surveys are not intended to measure comparative levels of support, as respondents are only given one option, they can either say yes or no. Just as you claimed that the Opinion Survey was not accurate because it did not offer the specific option that you prefer, by the same token, APR surveys are not a valid measure of hunter opinions. Someone may prefer an OBR but since that's not an option they may support the APR survey regulation because they prefer it over nothing at all. 

That is not an indication of support for APR's specifically, it's simply picking the lesser of two evils. When hunters on a statewide basis were allowed to show levels of support for a variety of options, the combo regulation option came out the clear winner.

When you couple that with the fact that most of Michigan deer hunters were precluded from ever being chosen to receive an APR survey before the first envelope was even put in the mail, it becomes clear that the Opinion survey more clearly reflects general hunter opinions.


----------



## mbrewer

November Sunrise said:


> Strong explanation. Easy to follow for anyone who may not have understood the distinction in responses.


It was, but it also leaves the impression that since we don't know everything, we don't know anything.


----------



## mbrewer

November Sunrise said:


> What's your theory on why support would be higher in the NLP than SLP?


1 extra point


----------



## JVoutdoors

Sorry, had to step away and missed 35 pages. Has someone raised the issue of revenue? If you want less bucks shot, where does that put the combo tag in this master plan to turn MI into IL? The full time APR hunters cannot stop at just one I am guessing.Will you be able to buy 2 tags for say 8 pt only? All us hillbilly meat hunters won't buy 2. I see they are still trying to sell doe tags in my DMU, for revenue I am sure since the MAPR has probably hurt license sales. All these grand ideas will impact revenue and while the DNR may not manage for big bucks, they will always manage for revenue.


----------



## angry angler

357Maximum said:


> That's how special interests cases normally work. The intended victims did not even know they were under attack until it's too late. It's amazing how much time the average deer hunter wastes going to work and making ends meet instead of playing online super hunter. The average deer hunter does not even know he is under attack yet. That's going to change.


Spot on


----------



## sniper

angry angler said:


> Spot on


I spot on your spot on!...The average deer hunter is far more knowledgeable nowadays than they were 20 -30 years ago..Media, mags, TV and the internet...Some of you guys need to crawl out of the 1970's 80s..The generation behind you guys are a different breed..10-15 years from now, Apr's are a blip on the radar....It's coming..


----------



## hartman756

sniper said:


> I spot on your spot on!...The average deer hunter is far more knowledgeable nowadays than they were 20 -30 years ago..Media, mags, TV and the internet...Some of you guys need to crawl out of the 1970's 80s..The generation behind you guys are a different breed..10-15 years from now, Apr's are a blip on the radar....It's coming..


Well it doesn't look like bio agrees with you on it being a new and improved generation that has moved on from what the old generation believed. He is using the excuse for the LPDMI proposal failing is that hunters are still stuck with the same views as when he was a kid!



bioactive said:


> Growing up, for me, the words "8-point" singled the pinnacle of success in "getting a buck". It was the threshold we wanted to reach.


You guys can't have it both ways . Either it is a new and improved generation on your side overwhelming the old way of thinking or you guys failed because the thinking is still the same as when bio was a youngster !


----------



## DirtySteve

Munsterlndr said:


> With all due respect, you do understand that the group of hunters surveyed in the hunter opinion poll and the APR surveys are two distinctly different groups, right? The fact that the two results are different is not surprising given the fact that different methods were used to generate the two sample groups.



Yes I do understand the groups are distinctly different groups and I understand your claim that one wasn't random..... I just don't think your logic is enough to conclude that the apr survey isn't relevant. The number may be skewed slightly but still very relevant.


----------



## Munsterlndr

DirtySteve said:


> Yes I do understand the groups are distinctly different groups and I understand your claim that one wasn't random..... I just don't think your logic is enough to conclude that the apr survey isn't relevant. The number may be skewed slightly but still very relevant.


I didn't say that the APR survey was not relevant. For the limited purpose that it's designed for, it's very relevant. It's designed to measure the level of support among a specific group of hunters, for a specific regulation, for the purposes of the NRC making a decision to implement a specific stakeholder initiative. For that specific purpose, the results of the APR survey are relevant. 

What they are not relevant for is for any kind of a measure of the general level of support for mandatory APR's throughout the state . Using them as such invalidates their worth, as they are not designed for that purpose. It also can't be presumed that they reflect the attitudes of all Michigan deer hunters, as the sample group used was not taken from all Michigan deer hunters, it was taken from a qualified group of Michigan deer hunters, not all of them.


----------



## DirtySteve

Munsterlndr said:


> What they are not relevant for is for any kind of a measure of the general level of support for mandatory APR's throughout the state . Using them as such invalidates their worth, as they are not designed for that purpose. It also can't be presumed that they reflect the attitudes of all Michigan deer hunters, as the sample group used was not taken from all Michigan deer hunters, it was taken from a qualified group of Michigan deer hunters, not all of them.


In my post I didn't refer to the hunters in the entire state. I was referring specifically to SLP hunters. 

As far as the qualified group of hunters vs all of hunters I would prefer to hear from the qualified group than all hunters. I met some real dolts in the woods this season. Nice enough fellas but not real bright.


----------



## twolaketown

Munstelndr why can't you change your opinion on APR's? Im enjoying/experiencing the best Michigan deer hunting in my entire life in the NW12 because of antler restrictions.


----------



## Munsterlndr

DirtySteve said:


> In my post I didn't refer to the hunters in the entire state. I was referring specifically to SLP hunters.
> 
> As far as the qualified group of hunters vs all of hunters I would prefer to hear from the qualified group than all hunters. I met some real dolts in the woods this season. Nice enough fellas but not real bright.


The conversation started in response to a comment regarding the opinions of the majority of deer hunters in Michigan, which would indicate the entire state, that is the context that I was responding to.


----------



## Munsterlndr

twolaketown said:


> Munstelndr why can't you change your opinion on APR's? Im enjoying/experiencing the best Michigan deer hunting in my entire life in the NW12 because of antler restrictions.


Been hunting under them in Leelanau Co. for 12 years and remain unimpressed. YMMV


----------



## twolaketown

Munsterlndr said:


> Been hunting under them in Leelanau Co. for 12 years and remain unimpressed. YMMV


I don't know what YMMV is?? What's unimpressive with your current season? What would it take to make it a success?


----------



## Munsterlndr

twolaketown said:


> I don't know what YMMV is?? What's unimpressive with your current season? What would it take to make it a success?


Your mileage may vary.

What is unimpressive about this season? Having not seen a legal deer since opening day. I've seen several sub-legal ones since, though.

Putting a deer in my freezer.


----------



## Rasputin

farmlegend said:


> The words of your post are accurate, but your point is undeniably misleading. You have absolutely invoked the Apex Fallacy, as I have noted above.
> 
> You are clearly suggesting that there are plenty of older aged bucks to be had, and you are basing your assertion by the fact that older aged bucks do exist in the SLP. Of course they do. Lottery winners exist also, but that does not mean that they are common or that the purchase of a lottery ticket is a good bet.
> 
> Here in the SLP, our buck age structure is not good. I welcome cynics to visit large volume deer processors in the SLP the first two days of the firearms season, and then, a couple weeks later, the processor which November Sunrise visited a short distance away in West Unity, Ohio, when their gun season opens. Two different worlds. That's all.


Farm, the key to your post and your opinion is your experience in slp. I'm not sure I disagree with the concept of mapr in slp, but to project your experience on the rest of the state that has different dynamics is where I disagree with you. Nlp is a different world from slp, and UP altogether different. As an enigma, you of all people should understand that one size fits all is not a good fit.


----------



## sniper

hartman756 said:


> Well it doesn't look like bio agrees with you on it being a new and improved generation that has moved on from what the old generation believed. He is using the excuse for the LPDMI proposal failing is that hunters are still stuck with the same views as when he was a kid!
> 
> 
> 
> You guys can't have it both ways . Either it is a new and improved generation on your side overwhelming the old way of thinking or you guys failed because the thinking is still the same as when bio was a youngster !


Didn't say it would happen tomorrow, I said 10-15 yrs...I'm basing my opinion on the numerous younger hunters I know and their mindset about deer hunting nowadays..We talk about the old days when taking a doe was taboo and they laugh out loud..No bar graphs, no charts, no percentages....That's how they roll..


----------



## hartman756

sniper said:


> Didn't say it would happen tomorrow, I said 10-15 yrs...I'm basing my opinion on the numerous younger hunters I know and their mindset about deer hunting nowadays..We talk about the old days when taking a doe was taboo and they laugh out loud..No bar graphs, no charts, no percentages....That's how they roll..


You guys have been saying times have and are changing for the last 10-15 years already using the same reasons and now you are saying just watch the change coming in the next 10-15 years :lol:


----------



## sniper

hartman756 said:


> You guys have been saying times have and are changing for the last 10-15 years already using the same reasons and now you are saying just watch the change coming in the next 10-15 years :lol:


You have never read those typed words from me..I can guarantee that..Nice swing and miss at the heater though...


----------



## hartman756

sniper said:


> You have never read those typed words from me..I can guarantee that..Nice swing and miss at the heater though...


No it was not a swing and miss. I used the words "you guys" not "you"! You are not the first in a long line of drum beaters to make the claim you did. You are just one of the newest to pick up and start beating that same drum. And there will be someone waiting to take over that drum when you give it up in the years to come. So "you guys" are the correct words to use.


----------



## Waif

sniper said:


> Didn't say it would happen tomorrow, I said 10-15 yrs...I'm basing my opinion on the numerous younger hunters I know and their mindset about deer hunting nowadays..We talk about the old days when taking a doe was taboo and they laugh out loud..No bar graphs, no charts, no percentages....That's how they roll..


Ya, I got your all for me and big antlers mindset. Roll right out of your bed at home to nearby genuine wild deer, except for their maybe having being seen by a few neighbors over and over... conditioned just like where you hunt to not expect any threat.
All while blissfully snug in the knowledge that someday through legislation of others you'll be over run with trophy bucks.
Remember that fifteen years from now when trophy per hunter rates are calculated on charts and graphs.
10-15 years from now.
By then you'll be looking for a place to hunt,if you're even allowed to.
Or are you on great terms with nonhunters confirming your hunting trophies as the future of Michigan's deer with their blessing?
Till you look beyond your area and your personal goals in hunting you are far from doing anything positive.
For hunting or deer.
If you think A.P.R.'s are the answer to the future of Michigan's deer herds well being you're not even close to ready to change anything.

Good luck and I hope you get to look back over your results on charts and graphs and how they were accomplished by percentage thirty, forty years from now.


----------



## Waif

sniper said:


> Didn't say it would happen tomorrow, I said 10-15 yrs...I'm basing my opinion on the numerous younger hunters I know and their mindset about deer hunting nowadays..We talk about the old days when taking a doe was taboo and they laugh out loud..No bar graphs, no charts, no percentages....That's how they roll..


Keep laughin.
Dredge up some old maps from the seventies and compare to today.
Note the urban sprawl and how much land is no longer hunt-able.
Go back farther if you please and chart and graph and then go forward a few decades beyond today.
Not hard to do,you have the knowledge as to how....and what do you see?

Visit the U.P. soon. Get out back of beyond and camp.
Get out past the lights and the litter and the noise of humans. (They make noise,they must.)
Not easy, but you have access to google earth while planning!
Look real hard after you get acclimated after a night or two in the environment beyond constant electricity, techno , and noise.

Maybe, just maybe, you will see an animal a year old that has never seen a human.
Spend a couple weeks there and you might even see yourself and how you fit,or don't.


----------



## twolaketown

Waif said:


> Ya, I got your all for me and big antlers mindset. Roll right out of your bed at home to nearby genuine wild deer, except for their maybe having being seen by a few neighbors over and over... conditioned just like where you hunt to not expect any threat.
> All while blissfully snug in the knowledge that someday through legislation of others you'll be over run with trophy bucks.
> Remember that fifteen years from now when trophy per hunter rates are calculated on charts and graphs.
> 10-15 years from now.
> By then you'll be looking for a place to hunt,if you're even allowed to.
> Or are you on great terms with nonhunters confirming your hunting trophies as the future of Michigan's deer with their blessing?
> Till you look beyond your area and your personal goals in hunting you are far from doing anything positive.
> For hunting or deer.
> If you think A.P.R.'s are the answer to the future of Michigan's deer herds well being you're not even close to ready to change anything.
> 
> Good luck and I hope you get to look back over your results on charts and graphs and how they were accomplished by percentage thirty, forty years from now.


The proof of my last two years is hanging on my living room wall. I'll get to see the results every day for the rest of my life.


----------



## Waif

twolaketown said:


> The proof of my last two years is hanging on my living room wall. I'll get to see the results every day for the rest of my life.


Ya, I got antlers too,so what?

I stood under an old mans collection when buying a gun from him.
Impressive racks out of the U.P. .I added an arrow to his display.
His wistful eyes knew hunting was over..took all he could do to cross the street to his shop the younger generation and the one after ran into debt.
Same shop he built while selling his wife's baking door to door for money.
Who knows what became of those antlers. Don't matter to the old man who tagged them anymore anyway..
Not for my sake I swapped with his grandson to keep that gun in the family.
You think his grandson ever hunted his old Gramps old haunts or give a rip about them?
Too busy ruining his lifes work.

I never had a thing to say about the quality of old antlers other hunters put up of forkies and small sixes or eights.
How would I know in my ignorant, gotta kill mega bucks youth what was available in the forties and fifties anyway?
Their deer their choices.
Long trips to camps and woodsmoke and canvas.
I followed and hunted from tent camp, but not through their eyes.
Sure science and management have changed with time .
So has what passes for sport and sportsmanship.
Being out of debt enough to leave the rat race a couple weeks a year.
Having united pride in your hunting culture.(Ya well, a guy can dream)
Woodsmanship and being off the grid is still practiced,somewhere, by a fraction of antique lovin hunters.
But hey that's low tech,nature crap that's outdated and the new majority will see fit to dispense with such archaic foolishness.... it's big antlers after all that demonstrate true worth in a hunter despite hunting on a human infested postage stamp the deer would leave if there was anywhere else to go.

Each generation less tolerant of killing for sport. More too less tolerant of eating meat.
Weapons..naah. They are evil and need to go away..
Plastic and batteries and concrete. We got it all under control pops.
Just wait and see.


----------



## Waif

Here's a today's youth sample.
I dropped a ten point.
The neighbors mid twenties son shows up..you know the type ,living at mom and dads but I'm a big buck hunter so respect me?
Beautiful mornin says I.
"It was till now..you shot my buck I shot" he says and he turns away and starts walking.
Get back here I said...
Nope he's goin. If I'd had two legs he would not have made it off the property without a chat though.
Caught him whining at the landowners house.
Said look..you go out to that truck and find your hole in that deer you can have it.
If not you better quit pouting and get to work finding out what you did if you shot at one.
He went looking by his stand with the landowners son in law who could track ... for mystical sign.
Years later he got a place with his own land to call the shots on.
So this year on the opener who is in a tree to my left at sunrise? The boys dad unannounced.
So much for the youths big buck sanctuary visions if dad can't hunt it.
Course he had plenty to say about what I killed later as it was not to his standards.
Then got to explain why he was there( note that unannounced?) to the landowner and also be told why Q.D.M. would not be practiced....
A bright , promising ,knowledge infused , big buck makes the man future there huh?


----------



## sniper

Just continue to live in your bubble waif and type...Your last three sermons (posts) let's me know exactly how much you know about our future. ...One can not look into the future if he can not dig out of his past...


----------



## SCOOTERBUM

sniper said:


> Just continue to live in your bubble waif and type...Your last three sermons (posts) let's me know exactly how much you know about our future. ...One can not look into the future if he can not dig out of his past...


The future will bring an end to greed.


----------



## mbrewer

sniper said:


> Didn't say it would happen tomorrow, I said 10-15 yrs...I'm basing my opinion on the numerous younger hunters I know and their mindset about deer hunting nowadays..We talk about the old days when taking a doe was taboo and they laugh out loud..No bar graphs, no charts, no percentages....That's how they roll..


What goes around, comes around. Respected authorities are now advising restraint, where as recently as 2-3 years ago the same were advocating when you think you've killed enough does, kill some more.


----------



## Joe Archer

bioactive said:


> Odd that you say that Joe. The least support in the state for APRs comes from the SLP as can clearly be seen in the SLP LPDMI survey compared to the NLP LPDMI survey, and the NW 12 survey.


Up until this year, I would have thought that APR's would have been a slam dunk in the SLP. I know the LPDMI didn't quite make make it, and all I can guess is that it may have been seen as too restrictive.
CWD should now be a game and mind changer in the SLP when considering APR's. 
<----<<<


----------



## devilsbuck

sniper said:


> Didn't say it would happen tomorrow, I said 10-15 yrs...I'm basing my opinion on the numerous younger hunters I know and their mindset about deer hunting nowadays..We talk about the old days when taking a doe was taboo and they laugh out loud..No bar graphs, no charts, no percentages....That's how they roll..


Someone gets it.


----------



## JVoutdoors

Joe Archer said:


> Up until this year, I would have thought that APR's would have been a slam dunk in the SLP. I know the LPDMI didn't quite make make it, and all I can guess is that it may have been seen as too restrictive.
> CWD should now be a game and mind changer in the SLP when considering APR's.
> <----<<<


That may be the driver on any changes, Joe, that only a few have raised. For all of MI APR considerations. I saw a press release yesterday on the DNR and troopers targeting hunters coming back into MI on the I-94 corridor in the SW and not being up on every detail of the states with CWD, was shocked at the number of states impacted and thus one cannot bring a carcass back from. I think it said they busted like 5 people and actually made physical arrest and lodged them. Wow. Not an appearance ticket and court date... right to the county jail boys. Antler restrictions would mean a lot of things that counter managing to prevent CWD spread, which I believe Munster has made a case on.


----------



## devilsbuck

hartman756 said:


> No it was not a swing and miss. I used the words "you guys" not "you"! You are not the first in a long line of drum beaters to make the claim you did. You are just one of the newest to pick up and start beating that same drum. And there will be someone waiting to take over that drum when you give it up in the years to come. So "you guys" are the correct words to use.


You are correct. 
The drum has been beaten. 
It gets picked up and beaten again by someone else. 
And it will be handed to another. 
What "you guys" keep ignoring is the drum is beaten harder now than 15 years ago. It will continue for another 15 years. 
The days of old " you guys" are clinging to are diminishing with every hunting season. 
The mindset of creating more big bucks to hunt by protecting yearling bucks is overtaking the traditional mindset. 
It started out as voluntary, evolved to educational attempts and now regulations. 
I know there are hunters who don't like this change but it's just the way it is. 
You can point out all the negative aspects, conspiracies, irrelevant surveys, etc that you want, but like I keep saying that isn't going to stop the changes that are evolving in our hunting world. 
Very few people are even aware or care. 
I'll even side with one of your thoughts.
It's all about big antlers at the end of the day.


----------



## devilsbuck

mbrewer said:


> What goes around, comes around. Respected authorities are now advising restraint, where as recently as 2-3 years ago the same were advocating when you think you've killed enough does, kill some more.


True. Things change in the deer herd. 
When the changes occur so should harvest decisions. 
Populations are low. So shoot less does. 
This does not mean you have to shoot a buck. Yes it would be a better decision than a doe in low populations. 
Then again it's not the job of the DNR to insure you get a deer in the freezer either. 
APRs in low populations may very well prevent a hunter from doing so, but if the management goal is to increase the population and increase buck age structure, the result will be more empty freezers for those who were accustomed to either filling them with does and or any legal buck prior to APRs. 
Rules are rules and they serve a purpose. 
We may not agree with them but we have to follow them. 

I have permission to hunt a small property. The rule is I am allowed 1 buck a year. 
The landowner hasn't allowed any doe hunting in years because he doesn't think the population can handle it. 
I am fortunate that I traveled out of state and was able to put a couple of deer in the freezer and one for the wall.

By the way my freezer sees 2-3 less deer than 2-3 years ago but my walls are starting to fill.


----------



## Munsterlndr

devilsbuck said:


> It's all about big antlers at the end of the day.


Mindsets change constantly due to varying factors. Currently there is a trend among some hunters (whether it is a majority or minority is debatable) towards emphasizing big antlers. As mentioned, CWD has the potential to be a game changer in that regard. Take a look at a map of Missouri from 5 years ago and count the counties with mandatory APR's. Then next spring take a look at an updated map. You are going to see about 20 fewer counties with mandatory APR's then there were just a few years ago. That trend will probably continue as CWD continues to spread. Whether the cult of big antlers will continue to spread in that environment remains to be seen but one thing is for sure, mindsets can change in the blink of an eye and what seems to be a strong trend today can be a thing of the past tomorrow.


----------



## JVoutdoors

devilsbuck said:


> You are correct.
> The drum has been beaten.
> It gets picked up and beaten again by someone else.
> And it will be handed to another.
> What "you guys" keep ignoring is the drum is beaten harder now than 15 years ago. It will continue for another 15 years.
> The days of old " you guys" are clinging to are diminishing with every hunting season.
> The mindset of creating more big bucks to hunt by protecting yearling bucks is overtaking the traditional mindset.
> It started out as voluntary, evolved to educational attempts and now regulations.
> I know there are hunters who don't like this change but it's just the way it is.
> You can point out all the negative aspects, conspiracies, irrelevant surveys, etc that you want, but like I keep saying that isn't going to stop the changes that are evolving in our hunting world.
> Very few people are even aware or care.
> I'll even side with one of your thoughts.
> It's all about big antlers at the end of the day.


The big antlers those guys got busted with were going to be incinerated after being checked for CWD. I wonder if they can get the ashes back and put them on the mantle next to a picture so they can still be in the "new age" of thinking camp? Or maybe they will just beat their drum in memory of the big antlers that got away? LOL


----------



## FREEPOP

devilsbuck said:


> True. Things change in the deer herd.


Welcome back bucksnbows


----------



## FREEPOP

Munsterlndr said:


> Whether the cult of big antlers will continue to spread in that environment remains to be seen but one thing is for sure, mindsets can change in the blink of an eye and what seems to be a strong trend today can be a thing of the past tomorrow.


The only constant in life, is change.


----------

