Antler Point Restrictions and Traditional Bowhunting

[GCook]

The meat hunters (brown and down crowd) will not hesitate to shoot the big buck that wanders off of the well managed property of someone practicing QDM then they will plaster it all over the forms and the book of faces.  It's hypocrisy at it's finest.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

[ron w]

I have been trying to kill a deer with the bow since 1967, did it with a compound and then went right back to a recurve. Do the math.......long time bowhunting with trad gear and no luck. Therefore AR is not in my play book. I get a chance to kill a deer and it's not a legal deer because it's a spike or only 2 on a side.......I won't be happy. If you want to pass on a small buck.....God Bless you, but don't tell me what I can or can not shoot. Oh yea......I'll take a doe in a heart beat.

[gregg dudley]

It’s not hypocritical to want to killl a big buck and not be in favor of antler restrictions.  You want a big buck.  He wants a big buck.  She wants a big buck.  I want a big buck. Everyone wants a big buck.  Here’s a little secret.... there have always been big bucks and there always will be with or without the management flavor Du jour. 

Someone stated above that management practices should not favor “brown is down” philosophy.  They are right!  Someone else stated that management practices should not favor the “big horn crowd”.  They are right too!  Management practices should favor a healthy deer herd and consider scientifically sound factors like carrying capacity and buck/doe ratios.  “Hunter Satisfaction” should be way down the list.

Since this topic started, I have researched the benefits of antler restrictions through available online resources.  The number one reason that is cited is age distributions are increased within a population.  So I searched for evidence of the benefits of wider age distribution .  Turns out there is a LOT of guesswork on that subject.  It also turns out that if aliens abducted every buck over 1.5 years old, the species could still thrive.

I found previous reference to fish limits to be interesting, but deer don’t breed like fish.  Neither do they form harems like elk and limit breeding to the biggest baddest bull in the woods.  Whitetail bucks spend 36-48 hours locked down with a single doe to breed.   Any 1.5 year old buck can and will breed. The genetic die has already been cast regardless of the age of the sire.  In a relatively predator-free 2018, big antlers are more coveted by hunters than necessary to a whitetail.

[gvdocholiday]

I wonder how much of this APR stuff is decided politically and how much is decided on REAL science.

In Michigan we voted.  78% in favor.  66% was the thresh hold it had to breech to be instituted.  I believe the term the DNR used is "Super Majority".  What I noticed is there's a good number of those who were against APR's, who now think they're the greatest thing since sliced bread. 

[gregg dudley]

I wonder how much of this APR stuff is decided politically and how much is decided on REAL science.

In Michigan we voted.  78% in favor.  66% was the thresh hold it had to breech to be instituted.  I believe the term the DNR used is "Super Majority".  What I noticed is there's a good number of those who were against APR's, who now think they're the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Nothing says policy by opinion quite like voting for management criteria.  When they offer a common vote and the general public decides that hunting isn’t a viable management tool, there will be precedence like this to support it. 

[Austin Brown]

I wonder how much of this APR stuff is decided politically and how much is decided on REAL science.

In Michigan we voted.  78% in favor.  66% was the thresh hold it had to breech to be instituted.  I believe the term the DNR used is "Super Majority".  What I noticed is there's a good number of those who were against APR's, who now think they're the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Nothing says policy by opinion quite like voting for management criteria.  When they offer a common vote and the general public decides that hunting isn’t a viable management tool, there will be precedence like this to support it.

Totally agree Gregg

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

[Jon Stewart]

I am in an APR area and since this was started we are seeing many more deer, bucks and does. Now I am not a scientist but I figure if you let the small bucks go they breed does like big bucks do which give you more deer in the spring. You eliminate the smaller bucks in the fall that doesn't happen.  To me hunting in an APR area makes you a better hunter.  Before the APR's you could body shoot a deer in the early morning or late evening hunt but now you must make sure of what you are shooting.  Those spike bucks can hide those antlers pretty good sometimes.

Now for those that don't like to be told what to hunt. The minute you buy a license you are being told what to hunt even before APR restrictions.  I guess we need to  abide by the rules in place where ever you decide to hunt. If you don't like APR's find a spot where they are not imposed and shoot away.  I have  a feeling that APR's may go state wide in Michigan down the road.

As far as my equipment use goes: Primitive , using a self bow, self made arrows and stone points in a ground blind.

 

[gvdocholiday]

I wonder how much of this APR stuff is decided politically and how much is decided on REAL science.

In Michigan we voted.  78% in favor.  66% was the thresh hold it had to breech to be instituted.  I believe the term the DNR used is "Super Majority".  What I noticed is there's a good number of those who were against APR's, who now think they're the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Nothing says policy by opinion quite like voting for management criteria.  When they offer a common vote and the general public decides that hunting isn’t a viable management tool, there will be precedence like this to support it.

Hunting is referendum proof in MI.  Can't be voted against thanks to Public Act 21 of 2013.  PA 21 empowered the Natural Resource Commission to declare game animals and establish hunting seasons without legislative action. Prior, game animals needed to be declared in law, which subjected them to potential referendums(state wide ballot proposals). In 2006, for example, Michiganders overturned Public Act 160. PA 160 would have allowed for the hunting of mourning doves. Gov. Snyder signed the law(PA21) on May 8, 2013. Snyder justified his signature by noting, “This action helps ensure sound scientific and biological principles guide decisions about management of game in Michigan.”

Little more on that:
https://ballotpedia.org/Michigan_Natural_Resources_Commission_Initiative_(2014)

The voting for APRs took place amongst licenses hunters only by mail ballot and it still, even after crazy support, still had to go under the scrutiny of the NRC to determine scientific management validity.  Took nearly 2 years of presentations and committee hearings for them to finally approve it.  They then only approved it for 5 years to gather data on harvest, herd health indicators, habitat impact, Hunter satisfaction, recruitment, retention, economic factors, etc(social science is science).  After 4 years though,  the data collected was enough proof to determine scientific validity and the second mail ballot initiative was processed, with those in favor going from 68%, to 78% after experiencing APRs for 4 years.  The ballot results then finalized APRs for the NW12 and the sunset provision making them temporary were lifted, thus making them permanent.  Our area of the state continues to be the only area gaining in hunter numbers, where the rest of the state has been hemorrhaging.  Hunter numbers and hunter satisfaction is all part of sound scientific management because of our roles in management. 

Because if hunters aren't happy, hunters won't hunt, if there are no hunters, then the only valid management tool available to managers is severely weakened. 

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

[Zwickey-Fever]

I wasn't going to comment because its a subject about Michigan antler point restrictions, APR, which in my opinion is a weak version of Quality Deer Management, QDM. "My opinion", if one is trying to build a stronger and healthier deer herd, that person must show restraint in harvesting a deer and educate their selves on what to look for as well as to recognize the maturity of a animal.  The misconception here in southern Iowa is that people think there's a P&Y buck behind every tree, when there's not. I moved here from the east coast about 3 1/2 years ago. I bought a house with acreage and have practiced strict QDM when harvesting deer. And I have seen some benefits of my work. But here goes where the problem comes in, my neighbor do not practice QDM and take to the "brown down" method of hunting. They take anything, fawns, does and young bucks. This past October muzzle loader season they took 4 button bucks and one doe fawn. Even though I wasn't happy with their harvest, I can not tell one what to do on their own land. I've noticed this past year that my neighbors stand selections has been hugging my property line. Here is my point, QDM is only as good as your neighbors deer management. I also get the meat hunters view up to the point to where young bucks and fawns are taken. I've heard a lot of individuals say I'm a meat hunter when in reality they won't admit that they just got excited and took the very first deer that came into range. Trust me, I get excited as soon as I see a deer but I taught myself restraint. That's my opinion on the matter and hopefully I didn't ruffle anybody's feathers to much. Thanks for reading.

[SteveB]

Last 2 posts by Greg Dudley are about the best I've seen on the subject of MANDATORY AR's. Take the emotion out and make the decisions based on best management practices for the herd - not the hunters.

[gvdocholiday]

Last 2 posts by Greg Dudley are about the best I've seen on the subject of MANDATORY AR's. Take the emotion out and make the decisions based on best management practices for the herd - not the hunters.

What if, in certain areas, APRs are the means in which to achieve that?

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

[Kevin Dill]

Take the emotion out and make the decisions based on best management practices for the herd - not the hunters.

In principle this is good, but overlooks one big objective of management. In most states the deer herd is managed for the combined 1) good of the herd and 2) desires of the people of that state. The deer belong to the state and therefore are managed with the interests of all...or at least those who choose to have a voice. What's good for the hunter may not be good for the farmer...nurseryman...anti-hunter...etc. Like it or don't, they all have a say in how a state manages their deer. Some voices and votes speak louder than others, and luckily hunters tend to make their desires known.

So yes....deer herds are managed for the good of both: herd and hunter. It has to be a compromise. Again for the record, I don't support APRs intended to grow bigger antlers for trophy production. I don't have a problem with them when used as part of larger management strategy designed to bring better balance to a state's deer herd.

[gregg dudley]

Thanks, gvdocholiday, for the thoughtful and well expressed response. 

I am familiar with the provisions that you refer to that are intended to safeguard science-based conservation. They are certainly a step in the right direction.   

I do not discount Hunter Satisfaction entirely, I just don't see it as the driving force for conservation decision making, which it has become in some locales.  I also think that factors that increase hunter satisfaction for experienced and seasoned hunters may work against hunter recruitment.  I don't think that many hunters who currently hunt will stop hunting because of a policy or practice, but I do think that you can reduce the amount of new participants if you make hoops too difficult, regulations too confusing, or success too elusive.

[Chain2]

Greg I’m with you part of the way but I’m not on the part about making it more of a challenge. With, as I have listed above, what we have here like, the youth season, crossbows, all hunters can hunt from an elevated platform,  baiting, cameras, muzzleliaders that can shoot across an 80 rod field, liberal limits ( we get 2 bucks here plus). Here guys are hunting in houses with heaters and TV’s.  I almost think the only way to really help this end of it is to give the deer a gun and train them to shoot. Sir, these comments are submitted respectfully but what people call hunting in my neck of the woods, should be called shooting.

[gvdocholiday]

Thanks, gvdocholiday, for the thoughtful and well expressed response. 

I am familiar with the provisions that you refer to that are intended to safeguard science-based conservation. They are certainly a step in the right direction.   

I do not discount Hunter Satisfaction entirely, I just don't see it as the driving force for conservation decision making, which it has become in some locales.  I also think that factors that increase hunter satisfaction for experienced and seasoned hunters may work against hunter recruitment.  I don't think that many hunters who currently hunt will stop hunting because of a policy or practice, but I do think that you can reduce the amount of new participants if you make hoops too difficult, regulations too confusing, or success too elusive.

All very important factors, and no doubt all given unique measuring weights in the modeling used to base management decisions.  They're all variables, and the best thing about variables is that they can be tweaked from year to year should they change. 

I think APR's are a variable, that for the time being, are going to be weighted heavily to determine the impact to several aspects of management...primarily the ecological, biological, and social. 

I'd much rather 'mandatory' not be necessary.  My long term goals, are to see them implemented while offering education and outreach by working with conservation clubs and orgs through MOU's, get to that level where those 78% who wanted it are willing to do it without the mandate, then remove the regulation.  I'd wager that less than half of the 78% who voted in favor are willing to pass young deer without the mandate...the whole, "if I don't shoot it my neighbor will" mindset is strong.  Once that's changed, it's changed.  No need for the regs. 

[JohnV]

Here's a thought.  Let's make several public hunting areas "anything goes" and have several institute strict antler restrictions.  Five years down the road, where do you think most hunters will want to hunt?

[Cyclic-Rivers]

Here's a thought.  Let's make several public hunting areas "anything goes" and have several institute strict antler restrictions.  Five years down the road, where do you think most hunters will want to hunt?

In the woods

[bunyan]

I have mixed opinions on APR. It can be part of a management tool to manage a healthy deer herd, but antler size on its own does not help with that. I have seen deer aged by tooth wear and replacement at 3 1/2 years that were forkhorns. And in many cases hunters still shoot the first legal buck so your harvest changes from mostly 1 1/2 year old bucks to 2 1/2 year old bucks. I've heard hunters at managed hunts in trophy areas where APR and spread/main beam regs were instituted say, "don't pull that tape measure too tight". They came to a trophy area and still shot a barely legal buck...knowingly. Like so many things its about educating hunters and changes in attitudes that make APRs work. And that's harder to do than counting points.

[Roger Norris]

The meat hunters (brown and down crowd) will not hesitate to shoot the big buck that wanders off of the well managed property of someone practicing QDM then they will plaster it all over the forms and the book of faces.  It's hypocrisy at it's finest.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

It isn't hypocrisy at all. Every hunter dreams of a buck with trophy antlers. But many hunters don't base the success of their hunt on it. I have shot many small bucks. Their antlers and the memories they have given me are just as valuable is the bigger deer I have shot.

In Michigan....get rifle season out of the rut. Start it December 1st instead of November 15th.

[Roger Norris]

Tell me which deer mount means the most too me? Hint...it isn't the big one. I hunt for myself. Not to impress others, not for bragging rights.