Michigan Sportsman Forum banner

Would mandatory APR’s have a greater impact on the private land or public land Hun

  • Private

    Votes: 26 8.4%
  • Public

    Votes: 147 47.4%
  • Both Equally

    Votes: 137 44.2%
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 47 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,158 Posts
Would mandatory APR’s have a greater impact on the private land or public land hunter?


Comments will be allowed, however please direct them to the APR work group and not eachother. This forum will follow the same rules and guidelines as the whitetail forum.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,771 Posts
Obviously, if you own the land you hunt, you can choose to the the small ones go. There are quite a few co-ops going now also.If you hunt public land, and let one go, the next guy down can whack him, and you have no recourse what so ever. CDAD
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,443 Posts
I think impact might need to be better defined. If the rationale is to created better age structure for bucks, I would think public land will also benefit. But all things aren't equal. Private land can be managed specifically for the goals determined by the landowner. Public land still has all the remaining management issue, ie hunter density, questionable habitat, non deer hunting pressure etc. On public land apr is a single tool, but most of the other management problems still exist on public land.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,552 Posts
It would have a greater impact on the public land hunter. Since there are many areas of public land with no antlerless tags, many public land hunters would be left with empty freezers. A large percentage of the private land hunters will shoot what they want anyway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,933 Posts
Thats a loaded and bias question especially if its the first question one answers and than goes to the next questions. A questionaire might assume APR's have a great impact, while anwering the next questions.

This falls in hand with any survey can dictate the results based on how the questions are written, where they are located in a survey etc...

The bias, is the question assumes APR have a great impact? Thats debatable in itself.

Just pointing this out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
288 Posts
would have a giant impact on state land, with limited state land doe tags and the baiting ban for the first time i can remember theres actually empty parking lots for state land during hunting season around here. that has to have an impact on license sales.

less people would hunt.....not everyone has access to private land. and to some people any deer is a trophy
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,318 Posts
It would have a larger impact on the public land hunter. It seems that a lot of the public land hunters have a limited time to hunt. A shorter vacation time can affect what the public land hunter sees and has a shot at and or stands and blinds cannot be left out for extended periods legally.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
18,716 Posts
Impact in a positive way for public or private. anything has got to be better than deer buck bang. The more bucks hunters see over a few years the better its going to be. Hunter frustraition will stop in a few years after apr
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
805 Posts
There are too many variables to make APR work. Kids and first timers need no restrictions period. After that, all properties vary in the quality of habitat and hunting pressure which directly effect the opportunity to harvest. An APR on a second antler tag per season would be more socially acceptable. The OBR is a better avenue in regards to management. Just my opinion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,244 Posts
A positive impact (big antlers) or negative (lower success rates/loss of hunters ?? Need to know to answer
Thank you Swampbuck....it goes to show once again that not all poll questions are worded so that the answer is visibly clear. I have had the exact thoughts with poll questions before.
I attempted to try and avoid that happening, but obviously it didnt and for that I am sorry.

When the question was written, the intention behind it was for the potential for antler growth/development if APR's were in place and if hunters felt it would benefit the the public land hunter or the private land hunter more.....with regards to antler growth/development.

Thanks,

Jason
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,660 Posts
I believe that the impact would be greatest on public lands. With respect to controlled harvest, private landowners already have that option available and can and often do control their own lands with regards to what kinds of bucks are allowed to be harvested as well as numbers.
Now with that being said, land owners that have small parcels or parcels adjacent to tracts of public lands shall receive greater benefit if their golas were to protect younger bucks, because of the nature of deer wandering to and from these lands back and forth.

In regards to hunter success rates/loss of hunters because of APR's, is completely debateable. I am assuming Swampbuck is referring to the data that was compiled in the NWLP. To pin down that APR's were the direct and sole cause of success rates and loss of hunters is problematic. Hunter numbers are down statewide and its no secret. It is also no secret that hunters have decided to leave traditional hunting grounds for richer hunting grounds, specifically the grain belt and SLP.

There are many reasons for this shift, some are as follows:

1. Sheer numbers of deer holding in the grain belt and SLP are significantly higher than anywhere else in the state.
2. The heavy ag producing areas found in the SLP produce bigger deer, and a much higher chance at harvesting a quality buck than most of the traditional hunting grounds.
3. Economics come into play for alot of folks. The high rate of unemployment is keeping some guys and gals from having the disposable income to take a week off and spend money they just don't have to go deer hunting. Especially in light of the fact that there is quite a bit of 'better' hunting ground closer to home. They can make more trips closer to home, and still have a better chance at harvesting a deer of their dreams.
4. Liberal antlerless licenses are available throughout the SLP zone and has been this way for quite a long time. Alot of folks do not wish to go into Northern Michigan, UP included, to sit for a week and possibly see one deer all week in certain areas.....only to watch it and not have the ability to harvest that antlerless deer.
5. The degradation of family traditions that entail spending family time in the woods is slipping as well. As the old timers start to pass on to the hunting grounds of heaven, the younger generations are not taking their places like we did 20 yrs ago. People my age have kids, and not all of these kids wish to get in the outdoors and parents aren't pushing them either. We are witnessing a die off in our sport with the aging baby boomers, and the lack of interest in that generations grandchildren.

I see these as the main factors for lack of success and loss of hunters. To lay soley at the feet of APR's, is irresponsible and very narrowminded. Pennsylvania fought long and hard against implementing APR's, I have many a friend there and business aqcuaintances and they all said the same thing. I have to giggle when I talk to them now, you won't find hardley a sole that wants them to go away.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,266 Posts
public land would gain the most in antler development it would help the private land as well with that whack em and stack em neighbor

sound like a good idea where do we sign up
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,920 Posts
In regards to hunter success rates/loss of hunters because of APR's, is completely debateable. I am assuming Swampbuck is referring to the data that was compiled in the NWLP. To pin down that APR's were the direct and sole cause of success rates and loss of hunters is problematic. Hunter numbers are down statewide and its no secret. It is also no secret that hunters have decided to leave traditional hunting grounds for richer hunting grounds, specifically the grain belt and SLP.
I would encourage the APR group to compare the data from DMU 045 to that from surrounding countys. The simple fact that Leelanau county has had a greater hunter loss than neighboring countys should be an eye opener. Harvest success is also headed down as it has in other states after 5 or more years.......

When looking at data to determine the effectivness of a method one needs to look at the Long Term data of 5 years or more. Study the Data from not only Michigan but also the other states that have had APR's for 5 years or more.

The APR group needs to get this right.....Do not be mislead by antler obsession or DNR big wigs who are under outside influences. Take your time and contact those state wildlife dept's directly.........BE INFORMED!

I suggest you ask the following......

-Effect on hunter numbers after 5 or more years of APR's compared to neighboring areas.

-Effect on hunter success rates

-Effect on total deer harvest. Check doe harvest's also to see if it actually helps with population reduction.

-Long term effect on average gross antler score by age class

Most of all do not exclude ANY deer hunters from official polls or votes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,660 Posts
I would encourage the APR group to compare the data from DMU 045 to that from surrounding countys. The simple fact that Leelanau county has had a greater hunter loss than neighboring countys should be an eye opener. Harvest success is also headed down as it has in other states after 5 or more years.......

When looking at data to determine the effectivness of a method one needs to look at the Long Term data of 5 years or more. Study the Data from not only Michigan but also the other states that have had APR's for 5 years or more.

The APR group needs to get this right.....Do not be mislead by antler obsession or DNR big wigs who are under outside influences. Take your time and contact those state wildlife dept's directly.........BE INFORMED!

I suggest you ask the following......

-Effect on hunter numbers after 5 or more years of APR's compared to neighboring areas.

-Effect on hunter success rates

-Effect on total deer harvest. Check doe harvest's also to see if it actually helps with population reduction.

-Long term effect on average gross antler score by age class

Most of all do not exclude ANY deer hunters from official polls or votes.
The effect of greater than normal hunter loss on Leelanau County would make sense, if you take into account that the neighboring county(s) is not under an APR. What I mean by this, is the fact that if given an option that is less restrictive, human nature dictates that people (hunters in this case) would gravitate towards those areas. Harvesting older bucks presents hunters with more challenges and more difficulties than it takes to harvest yearling bucks. Given the geographical proximity, it would only make sense that the counties immediately adjacent to the restrictive counties would have a draw for more hunters looking to fill a tag. If the APR's were across a broader region, hunter efforts would be more spreadout and thus stabilize a region with hunter pressure.

All one must do is look to the SLP and see the effect of higher deer densities with a greater chance at harvesting a quality buck does for concentration of hunters in your quality buck areas. Local businesses are reaping the benefits, where as the businesses in the traditional deer camp areas of the north are suffering. The migration north of deer hunters of yesterday with their money kept alot of the northern small town businesses going and was an integral structure of their business prosperity that was counted on to make their bottomline. Snowmobile season (weather permitting) and summer tourism always came in second and third to the firearms deer season. Quite frankly, I don't know how some of these small town businesses survive in the vacuum of what once was a boom for them.

Antlerless harvesting has always been the number one tool in the tool box when it comes to population control. We have nevere had a lottery system to draw a buck tag.

Michigan deer hunting is at a crossroads right now. We can keep on trudging down the same roads as we always have, or we can embrace some change and catch up to our neighbors in other states. Granted, it's not all about the antlers, but to a certain extent it is. I do not know of too many hunters who spend the money at the taxidermist to get a doe mounted. Hunters follow the deer, alot will follow the quality buck hunting, the money follows....and so does our future. There is absolutely no reason why Michigan cannot be a premier hunting destination in the Midwest...and we don't have to follow a trophy management philosophy, but there are things we can do to make what we have right now a little better.......and its time we do so.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
18,716 Posts
The effect of greater than normal hunter loss on Leelanau County would make sense, if you take into account that the neighboring county(s) is not under an APR. What I mean by this, is the fact that if given an option that is less restrictive, human nature dictates that people (hunters in this case) would gravitate towards those areas. Harvesting older bucks presents hunters with more challenges and more difficulties than it takes to harvest yearling bucks. Given the geographical proximity, it would only make sense that the counties immediately adjacent to the restrictive counties would have a draw for more hunters looking to fill a tag. If the APR's were across a broader region, hunter efforts would be more spreadout and thus stabilize a region with hunter pressure.

All one must do is look to the SLP and see the effect of higher deer densities with a greater chance at harvesting a quality buck does for concentration of hunters in your quality buck areas. Local businesses are reaping the benefits, where as the businesses in the traditional deer camp areas of the north are suffering. The migration north of deer hunters of yesterday with their money kept alot of the northern small town businesses going and was an integral structure of their business prosperity that was counted on to make their bottomline. Snowmobile season (weather permitting) and summer tourism always came in second and third to the firearms deer season. Quite frankly, I don't know how some of these small town businesses survive in the vacuum of what once was a boom for them.

Antlerless harvesting has always been the number one tool in the tool box when it comes to population control. We have nevere had a lottery system to draw a buck tag.

Michigan deer hunting is at a crossroads right now. We can keep on trudging down the same roads as we always have, or we can embrace some change and catch up to our neighbors in other states. Granted, it's not all about the antlers, but to a certain extent it is. I do not know of too many hunters who spend the money at the taxidermist to get a doe mounted. Hunters follow the deer, alot will follow the quality buck hunting, the money follows....and so does our future. There is absolutely no reason why Michigan cannot be a premier hunting destination in the Midwest...and we don't have to follow a trophy management philosophy, but there are things we can do to make what we have right now a little better.......and its time we do so.
Yeah BABY! Preach it !!
What he said
 
1 - 20 of 47 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top