Anti-APR Chatter In MN Outdoor News

[SD51555]

Anyone noticed all the letters from people spouting off against APRs? Right or wrong, I cannot figure out why all of a sudden this is such an issue. Is there another movement going on that I haven't heard about?

 

[wiscwhip]

Anyone noticed all the letters from people spouting off against APRs? Right or wrong, I cannot figure out why all of a sudden this is such an issue. Is there another movement going on that I haven't heard about?

I am telling you guys this is not an "all of a sudden" issue. I live 10 minutes from Houston Co, MN right in the APR hotzone and I work with probably 25 to 30 guys from over there. Many of them have been b!tch!ng about APR's from the get go, some have even said they shot bigger bucks before the APR's. I don't think those guys understand the term "high grading" when it comes to deer, but I feel this is pretty much what they are experiencing. I think it hasn't surfaced until now because many of these guys are farmers or son's of farmers that just won't bother speaking up on stuff like this "publicly", but they aren't afraid to bring it up in casual deer hunting conversations over a few beers. Now that outfitters and lessee's are not seeing the large bucks they have in the past, sabre's are being rattled. This likely has something to do with the overall population going down due to having to harvest a doe instead of a smaller buck as well.

 

[Freeborn]

I am telling you guys this is not an "all of a sudden" issue. I live 10 minutes from Houston Co, MN right in the APR hotzone and I work with probably 25 to 30 guys from over there. Many of them have been b!tch!ng about APR's from the get go, some have even said they shot bigger bucks before the APR's. I don't think those guys understand the term "high grading" when it comes to deer, but I feel this is pretty much what they are experiencing. I think it hasn't surfaced until now because many of these guys are farmers or son's of farmers that just won't bother speaking up on stuff like this "publicly", but they aren't afraid to bring it up in casual deer hunting conversations over a few beers. Now that outfitters and lessee's are not seeing the large bucks they have in the past, sabre's are being rattled. This likely has something to do with the overall population going down due to having to harvest a doe instead of a smaller buck as well.

It would be good to see the deer population changes and hunter effort numbers. Has the the hunting pressure greatly increased due to APR's? Due they restrict doe harvest after the overall population hits a certain level? You can't manage the herd with only one measurement or practice and we as hunters should require a comprehensive set of practices.

Decreasing the doe herd, particularly during the initial implementation years of APR's, makes no sense as you know you would be lowering the deer herds ability to sustain its population. That doesn't seem complicated to me.

 

[bat man]

IYou can't manage the herd with only one measurement or practice and we as hunters should require a comprehensive set of practices.

.

Thats the thrust of the audit from my perspective.

The pro APR guys know it won't fly with 10 dpsm. Way too many hunters to have any quality anything at those levels. The guys with the does have them all because they won't shoot them. Those does produce the bucks we are shooting, but its not enough to keep our current # of deer hunters happy at 10 dpsm.

We need more deer or fewer hunters. I prefer the first option.

 

[wiscwhip]

APR's are not used by any DNR as a tool to increase mature buck populations, as much as hunters would like to think that is what they are for and that is why the DNR implemented them, that is simply a side affect of APR's. DNR's, contrary to what they will tell the hunters, put APR's in place to force more does to be shot, due to the fact that smaller bucks are off limits and if someone wants a deer for the freezer it is either 4 points on a side(or whatever it is in your area) or a baldie, nothing more, nothing less. The DNR doing the hunters a "favor" to increase the large buck population by implementing APR's is a complete and utter fallacy on the part of the DNR and pure fantasy instigated by the imaginations of the hunters looking to put Da' Turdy Point buck on their wall. It is a population control method disguised by the illusion of grandeur of having a trophy whitetail on every wall. I am not saying they are all bad, I think in some areas they can be a very good SHORT TERM tool to right population trends, buck/doe ratios, and age class discrepancies. I just have no illusion as to what they represent in the world of whitetail deer management.

Sorry if I appear to be p!$$!ng in everyone's Cheerios on this, but that is the reality of it.

 

[bat man]

Sorry if I appear to be p!$$!ng in everyone's Cheerios on this, but that is the reality of it.

Most of us realize the DNR motivation for the tool. We also know that when we actively manage our land, we have control over doe numbers to an extent, but its the wandering bucks that our brown its down neighbors are killing.

APRS would benefit my managed grounds for my set of goals, to the detriment of my non managing neighbors.

 

[Freeborn]

APR's are not used by any DNR as a tool to increase mature buck populations, as much as hunters would like to think that is what they are for and that is why the DNR implemented them, that is simply a side affect of APR's.

That's why we need a DNR that does not mislead or lie to its citizens.

 

[wiscwhip]

Most of us realize the DNR motivation for the tool. We also know that when we actively manage our land, we have control over doe numbers to an extent, but its the wandering bucks that our brown its down neighbors are killing.

APRS would benefit my managed grounds for my set of goals, to the detriment of my non managing neighbors.

I disagree Brooks. We HERE may understand the DNR motivation for APR's, the average "Fudd" however has no clue. Unless your DNR were to implement APR's in an area with VERY restrictive doe harvests(not likely to happen and is not the case in SE MN) it won't matter what you do as far as managing your individual property. The only does you will be protecting at that point are the ones that never, ever leave your place. Those brown is down guys will just turn their fire towards all the antlerless in the absence of being able to shoot whatever buck walks by. In your situation, I would rather have them shooting(and shoot they will) forks and small 8's than all the does. If they did implement APR's with minimal to no doe harvest, that would be looked upon by many as simply a trophy deer management tactic, and that will also not sit well with the majority of guys just out to enjoy the hunt and harvest a little venison. That is why you rarely see APR's and restricted antlerless harvest implemented in the same areas, it simply doesn't fit the "management profile" of APR's and won't fly in the face of the Fudd's who are spending the majority of the license dollars.

 

[wiscwhip]

That's why we need a DNR that does not mislead or lie to its citizens.

All DNR's that have implemented APR's do this, I have never once seen an instance where a DNR came out and announced that APR's were being put into place to force more antlerless to be killed. They simply tout the fact that more bucks will be allowed to reach maturity(which is not a lie) and the hunters do the rest in their own minds, ignoring the fact that the triggers will be turned on the antlerless population.

 

[bwoods11]

If we moved the season back two weeks we would not need APR.

That being said, I'm sure it would work in certain counties.

 

[bat man]

I disagree Brooks. We HERE may understand the DNR motivation for APR's,.

That is what I meant. 95% of the fudds have no clue and don't care enough to find out.

I own in area that was 5 does per guy for 8 years. I still had does and saw them most every sit. My brown its down and sloppy neighbors were seeing nothing. Brown its down smart hunters could cause some major issues but there are not as many of them.

I see plenty of deer, while guys a mile away see 2 deer for 9 guys in 9 days of hunting. I don't see the caliber of bucks I strive for.

From 2005 - 2007, Cornicelli himself (our deer czar at the time) whispered in the ears of our QDMA guys that as soon as the deer numbers were reduced he would bring buck protection to their areas. And yes - it was a flat out manipulative lie.

 

[sandbur]

As far as I'm concerned, the APR discussion has no value in MN. It simply continues to fuel the divide between deer hunters, which is something we really don't need right now.

I have to agree, Stu. I get fired up over these APR discussions, but we just need more deer for now. We have a start, but a long way to go. We do not need to be arguing over APR's.

 

[SD51555]

Everyone that I know that has put a large deer on the wall did it during the boom days in the early 2000's. I remember when Ripley was good, my buddy took two wall mounters out of there and made the front page of the ODN holding each one up. Could also be a good picture to illustrate the demise of it as well.

 

[sandbur]

In my head I am always seeking the answer for why the buck situation is so different here than WI. There are a number of differences, but one of them is not APRs. WI is able to continue leading (or top 3 anyway) the nation in mature buck harvest year after year while MN slips annually. Why? To me, the simplest answer is the size of the deer herd in each state. Yes, the timing of the firearm season plays a role....but why isn't MN producing just as many big bucks (should be more really, given the fact MN's firearm season is during the rut) every year? If the bucks were there...they'd be shot, just as they are in WI.

Get the herd to reasonable levels and watch the number of big bucks taken each year go up...I'd virtually guarantee it would happen.

And if hunters would just get a little better attitude about making a choice on which one deer they wish to kill.

Remember our discussions of 15 or so years ago about how things are different between the two states?

 

[sandbur]

Yes I do recall those discussions.
I think if there are more deer in the woods, a naturally occurring phenomena takes place with many hunters...they get less anxious about filling their tags with the first deer they see. Get more deer to survive those first two days of the season...and you get more bucks living longer.
NOW is the time for our state deer groups to formulate a PR campaign regarding "selective" harvest or something along those lines. Get the right message out there at a time when more hunters may be open to it (we'll never reach everybody) and the long term results could be quite positive.

Last week I sent Craig E. an email along those lines. No reply, yet.

 

[wiscwhip]

I'll agree with that statement with one exception...Texas does indeed use APRs along with a spike exclusion (any deer with one or two spikes can be harvested in their APR areas) to increase mature buck populations as well as mature buck antler scores.

I guess I would agree with that as well stu, they do seem to push that as a primary reason for APR's in TX. That said, they do not have restricted doe harvests in those areas and every outfitter and ranch owner down there encourages the crap out of guys to harvest does while they are hunting, some to the point that they give discounted hunts to those who do harvest a couple does while they are hunting for Mr. Big. So that really leads back to the initial fact that they are still using APR's(and financial incentives on the part of the outfitters/ranch owners) as a herd control tool regardless of the fact they say it is to increase the size of mature bucks. In the end it really isn't much different than everywhere else, maybe worse given they also give the hunters a financial break to kill does.

 

[sandbur]

^^^I'm in watch and wait mode with MDHA. What they do between now and fall will determine whether I renew my membership or not.

I like the proposal for the 10,000 acres in the area of Badoura nursery.I hope they have all of the financial things figured out to pay the taxes on the land and keep it open to the public. This should also reduce potential downgrading of the Crow Wing River. Land In Cass County is supposed to be turned over to the county. Cass manages other lands in that area. MDHA may hold onto lands in Hubbard and Wadena counties if I have the story right.

 

[bat man]

I like the proposal for the 10,000 acres in the area of Badoura nursery.I hope they have all of the financial things figured out to pay the taxes on the land and keep it .

MN has tons of poorly managed public hunting. What is great about another ten thousand acres of it?

MDHA should be focused on proper management of what we already have

 

[SD51555]

When I saw LSOHC had their sights on land in Cass county, my hinder puckered up a bit. But it sounds like it's a conversion from county to state control on the other side of the county from us. It's nice to have some public land out our back door, but we certainly don't need any more. Ownership drives stewardship, and you can't get that kind of commitment on public land.

 

[MoLandOwner]

I agree, but I'd much rather have MDHA own those 10K acres than have it all turned into more spud farms.

What...you don't like potatoe's?


And I spelled potato wrong for Dan Quayle. LOL What a dope!