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.
21 - 40 of 47 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,933 Posts
There is
absolutely no reason why Michigan cannot be a premier hunting destination
YES there is its called, jackpine, woods, and the UP. SLP on the other hand could be, but population and fractured real estate and hunter density takes a heavy toll.

To me its unbelievable we still think MI with its many many factors will become ILL/Iowa/Kansas/Ohio just be changing to AR's.

PA has changed and from what I have NOT heard or seen on TV is NOT becoming a destination like the other Midwest states. There is your example.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,867 Posts
Before I vote, please explain how the workgroup defines "impact"? Is that negative or positive impact? For the greatest positive impact, I'd say that public land would see the greatest overall positive impact from mandated APR's, since private landowners can have greater influence on their management.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
19,596 Posts
Impact can be either positive or negative. Loss of opportunity would be a potential negative impact, increased age structure might be a positive impact, it's not an either, or. Total up both the potential positive and negative impacts and decide who has more to gain or lose by the implementation of APR's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,357 Posts
You can expect higher rates of tresspassing and poaching on private land when more targets are off limits on public land, impacting the private land hunters in a negative way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,158 Posts
Discussion Starter · #26 ·
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.


Guys, these poll are not for discussions amongst yourselves, take those discussions back to the main forums. Please direct you comments toward the workgroup only and save me a lot of time deleting posts.


Thanks
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,920 Posts
I voted public and the impact would be negative.....Loss of hunters, decreased hunter success , And a strong negative economic impact on Northern Mi., Without any substantial increase in antler size.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,465 Posts
Is there anything that shows what has happened in Pennsylvania? They are very similar to us in hunter numbers and deer density. They also have a lot of public land hunters.

It seems when they were first instituted there was a lot of uproar but from what I read on other forums this seems to have leveled off and most are happy now.

I think it would be a negative impact at first on public land but after a few years I think it would be get way better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,920 Posts
Chuck, do a search online. Lots of info pro and con.

One thing that I would like the group to take into consideration......... There is a significant difference in the amount of public land per county. For instance some downstate countys may have just a few acres while some Northern countys are 60-70% public land........One size does not fit all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
968 Posts
I think that we can all agree that as a deer gets older, it gets smarter.

I think we can also agree that as deer get older, they tend to get bigger and not smaller.

So, with an APR, it would tend to mean that most "shooter bucks" would be older than they are currently.

All of that being said, I SERIOUSLY question how many older, smarter deer are going to get taken on state land that is, as most people agree, of lower hunting quality than private lands in the same areas.

If you think you see very few deer to shoot on state land now, imagine if you could only shoot older smarter bucks.... how many of those do you think you're going to see on state land with hunter orange every 100 yards?

lol, the year before that went into effect would be the last year a buck was shot on state land! (Exaggerated slightly for effect)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,920 Posts
In areas with APR'S after 5 years or so the see an average of 40-60% reduction in buck harvest numbers.

for example Pa buck harvest numbers
2001 season (pre-mars)........203,247 bucks

2009 season.......................108,330 bucks........almost 50%reduction

Doe harvest

2001 season........282,767 does

2009..................200,590 does



Total deer harvest last year (bucks&does) 308,920....lowest since 1987

Pre mars license sales 1,071,205.......last year 926,892.....14%reduction


Is this really what we want ?

http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=625882&mode=2
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,465 Posts
Swampbuck I think a lot of guys would be happy with that and while your at it raise the license to about 60 bucks for a buck tag. Now your talken! You just got rid of 90% of the weekend warriors.

Its sad the direction we are going in all for the mighty antler. What happend to deer hunting being about family and friends and well..... hunting!??
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
12,721 Posts
In areas with APR'S after 5 years or so the see an average of 40-60% reduction in buck harvest numbers.

for example Pa buck harvest numbers
2001 season (pre-mars)........203,247 bucks

2009 season.......................108,330 bucks........almost 50%reduction

Doe harvest

2001 season........282,767 does

2009..................200,590 does



Total deer harvest last year (bucks&does) 308,920....lowest since 1987

Pre mars license sales 1,071,205.......last year 926,892.....14%reduction


Is this really what we want ?

http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=625882&mode=2
What is the goal we are trying to achieve with APR's?
If it is older age class of bucks then the answer is yes.
If they (dnre) thinks it will promote more anterless harvest, they are wrong. All the APR studies in other states show only one change with APR's, and that is older bucks.

If they want to kill more anterless deer in Michigan, there is only one solution that is sure to work, you have to take bucks off the table for a longer period of time when hunters are in the woods. As long as bucks are legal targets, they will get killed over does.

When it comes down to it, especially with all the info that has been circulated in the deer hunting community about the benifits and reasons behind keeping populations in check, how to keep the population in check, letting younger bucks live, etc., our biggest problem is hunters think more about what is best for them. This is why APR's are becoming popular with state agencies, it is a way to force hunters into letting alot of younger bucks go, with the hopes that the hunters will take a doe instead. Unfortunatly there are alot of kinks and misconceptions in this program, coupled with alot of hunters who really have no interest in deer management.

In order to achieve a sustained population level all along advancing buck age class thru state regulations will require upsetting alot of hunters on both sides of the management fence.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
132 Posts
All of this sounds good but if people don't do it then it will not work!

$+ hunters= $tate need the funds!

I'd like to see 1 buck tag + 2 Doe tags per hunter and bow hunters should wack early does in Oct season. But it is hard to make a size limit with so many small bucks that will always be small bucks now if the person would pass on smaller bucks that you know is a younger buck now we are teaching the hunter to not be greedy and think about what we have and how it would get better with time.

But good luck with all of that...........
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,382 Posts
There are hunters that will pass on small bucks(myself included) and there are hunters that wont (my BIL). His largest is a 7 pt. Every year I will take a bigger buck 8pt or better. Does not matter where we hunt, private or state. Some hunters get it and some don't.
APR will force hunters to let the little ones go. They have to become better hunters or shoot does. Some will quit.
I have friends that hunt in the Leelanau county APR area and they love it. They take nice bucks and the hunting pressure is low. What more could you ask for.

There are way to many factors that have to go into the APR decisions.
New hunters-deer disease-economy-low and high deer density in different DMUs. :dizzy::dizzy::dizzy: Not all hunters are going to be happy. Look at the bait issue. Just do a vote and lets move on.
 
21 - 40 of 47 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top