Michigan Sportsman Forum banner

1 - 20 of 38 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
582 Posts
So that’s what happens when you stray too far off their yellow brick road. This post is a reply to QDMAMAN from the “I need meat to feed my family” thread. Just a few hours after I posted a reasonable, well thought out rebuttal to Mandatory Antler Point Restrictions the thread was closed. I need the man behind the curtain to PM me and explain why or if I did something wrong, if I may be too bold to ask. Just in case I too am banned, Justin, I need to know where to send these ruby slippers that I received from da Munster. J

T, when you post facts they must be backed up by truth. Just saying it doesn’t make it a fact or the truth. Thus the saying, “Tell a ___, make it big, and repeat it often and eventually it will morph into truth.” So, here is my response to your response.

#1 One of the biggest reasons the MDNR supports voluntary QDM is because, by and large, QDM’ers understand the need to control numbers through appropriate antlerless harvest.
First I did NOT say the MDNR supports voluntary QDM, I said voluntary APR’s. Please don’t get the two mixed up as there is a big difference. APR’s are a small part of true QDM. But, I will take this time to respond to your statement that MDNR supports QDM(A). It has nothing to do with antlerless harvest but more to do with the relationships formed with several special interest groups through the creation of “memorandums of understanding”. I believe these relationships have also affected three NRC members, thus clouding their judgment and preventing them from making unbiased decisions.

#2 The QDMA supports policies that protect at least 50% of yearling bucks.
50% today, what about tomorrow? Maybe 75%? The QDMA also supports VOLUNTARY antler point restrictions. With a good educational program maybe we could reach the 50% goal sooner than later. Is the QDMA ready to work with the DNR to achieve this?

#3 “Big Antlers” are NOT the ONLY reason for promoting APR’s.
Re-read my post, or is this a smokescreen? I said “Big Antlers are the Primary driving force” behind mandatory APR’s. Big difference.

#4 75% of hunters surveyed in Michigan indicated they wanted to see more and older bucks. Perhaps this could be interpreted as DIMINISHED GRATIFICATION? Hunters in 045 support MAR’s at a 72% clip (read majority) so do those on Drummond Island.
You are correct but the big question is, how do we get there? Is the question at hand. Show me a random, unbiased poll or survey from a pool of all Michigan hunters where you can get a simple majority to support Mandatory APR’s and I will capitulate. I bet I can get a majority of hunters to approve voluntary APR’s. 045 and Drummond Island are both different animals and I don’t have time or space here to explain why. There are a few other places in Michigan where APR’s might work rather well but NOT the whole U.P. or all of zone 3. That’s why we have a process for MAR’s.

#5 Hunter participation has been steady, to increasing, in 045 even with MAR’s in place.
I don’t doubt it, every hunter in the State who puts antler size as a primary reason to hunt, i.e. sportsmen, are heading there. Too bad there isn’t more public land to support them.

#6 Even a very strict MAR implemented in zone 3 would have little to no effect on recreational opportunity.
Now you are going out on a limb. Show me some statistics from your crystal ball to back this up. A good education program would have just as good a chance at achieving this and I am a prime example. Although I hunt exclusively in the U.P. for bucks, and yes I have self imposed APR’s, three years ago I started hunting the family farm in Sanilac County for does.

#7 Implementation of a strict APR MAY result in reduced gratification for hunters that are focused on antlers.
Even the current regulations force hunters to focus on antlers. If you buy the combo they must have antlers. (Except 487) Implementation of a strict APR will result in enhanced gratification for hunters focused on LARGE antlers.

#8 Liberal buck regulations in overpopulated DMU’s diminish the value of proper antlerless harvest and pander to hunters selfish desires to shoot two bucks at the expense of the resource.
What will change with MAPR’s? You guys will still shoot two bucks, just bigger ones. That is all YOU want. Less than 5% of hunters shoot a second buck now, but what a boon for the DNR’s budget. Expense of the resource? Where have you been? Oh, I know, a QDMA meeting.

#9 If >66%of hunters request MAR’s they’re NOT the minority.
IF and that is a big IF, 66% of hunters request MAR’s, just from a math standpoint I agree with you but refer back to #4.

#10 A 50% reduction in buck opportunities in Indiana resulted in a significant increase in hunter’s hours afield (read more recreational opportunity).
Then go hunt in Indiana. I hunt in Michigan and I see firsthand what APR’s did to hunting in the U.P.
Da Appleknocker
7-13-12
 

·
Tornado Jim
Joined
·
19,989 Posts
So that’s what happens when you stray too far off their yellow brick road. This post is a reply to QDMAMAN from the “I need meat to feed my family” thread. Just a few hours after I posted a reasonable, well thought out rebuttal to Mandatory Antler Point Restrictions the thread was closed. I need the man behind the curtain to PM me and explain why or if I did something wrong, if I may be too bold to ask.


Read posts 217, 220, 221 and 222 and I think you will be on the spoor of why the mods closed the thread.
 

·
Tornado Jim
Joined
·
19,989 Posts
Then go hunt in Indiana. I hunt in Michigan and I see firsthand what APR’s did to hunting in the U.P.[/SIZE][/FONT]
Da Appleknocker
7-13-12
See here's the problem and why you may feel people are picking on you. You claim to have evidence that HC in the UP has damaged the hunting up there in some way.

To support that, you stated that the 9% reduction of hunters up there was due to HC. The fact that there was also a 9% reduction in the NLP, and a 6% reduction in the SLP over the same time period, provide evidence that refutes your statement.

We also pointed out the severe shift in the economy during that time, including a 75% increase in gas prices. It makes perfect sense that the places people drive to for hunting (the UP and NLP) would have a greater rate of decline than the places closer to population centers, and where most people live (the SLP).


You continue to maintain that your anecdotal information proves something. It does not.

As for the point by point stuff QDMAMAN is right on the mark.

You saying the survey is somehow biased is nonsense.
 

·
Tornado Jim
Joined
·
19,989 Posts
I hunt in Michigan and I see firsthand what APR’s did to hunting in the U.P.[/SIZE][/FONT]
Da Appleknocker
7-13-12
Oh, one more thing. I just checked the hunter numbers between 2004 and 2007. The UP numbers declined by 8.5%, from 125118 to 106231. Are you going to blame that on HC? Oh, there weren't any were there? So perhaps there is another cause?

Wonder what it might correlate with? Oh, I found something! Gasoline prices were going up then too!



What you are seeing from 2008 to 2010 is a continuation of a downward slide that was already occurring.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,154 Posts
Exactly!! The last time i hunted the Munising area was the year the lindquist rules were implemented. I didnt stop hunting that area due to the new rules. My group was thrilled with them. We stopped because of Gas and low deer sightings. It use to cost me 100 bucks to get up there and drive around, now its over 200 bucks. Out of 3 guys i had a chance at a nice buck but the other 2 guys didnt see a thing. I saw a total of 5 deer. We simply said screw it. It aint worth the time to go up scout hang stands take another trip up set up camp and hunt.I now spend the money and go to Ohio or Ind. It wasnt because of Apr's.
It could the contradicting statements like this that make one skeptical of the APR message.....Or Is gas that much cheaper in Ohio and Ind.?:lol:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
582 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Bio, inreference to post #2 above, I have seen much worse on many threads and they were not closed.

I have never said ALL of the hunter drop since 2008 was due to HC (APR"S). Can you really say they have had no effect on hunter #'s? If you can you are not being realistic.

Lastly, follow the money. You are in business making a living from successful hunting properties, no wonder you support these initiatives. My motives are just wanting a level playing field for all hunters with NO financial gain, period. da Appleknocker :)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
30,863 Posts
Curtis,
You're losing credibility with every post. What a shame.:(
Again you accuse me of being a liar without proving wrong a single one of MY facts.
With nearly 550,000 antler less tags available in zone 3, how can ANYBODY say with a straight face that a slight modification in buck regs diminishes recreational opportunity?
As far as my #1 fact, I said voluntary QDM not Voluntary APR, please don't confuse the two.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
30,863 Posts
I have never said ALL of the hunter drop since 2008 was due to HC (APR"S). Can you really say they have had no effect on hunter #'s? If you can you are not being realistic.
Curtis, no one has ever said that HC wasn't A reason for hunter loss in the UP. One only needs to find (1) individual that stopped hunting the UP because they didn't like HC to prove it was A reason.
You said HC was a major factor that YOU witnessed first hand from a couple of conversations with neighboring camps.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,864 Posts
Qman and Bio, perhaps if the work group drops the zone 2 suggestion out of the proposal the debate could be lessened. While zone 3 may have a slightly lower probability of taking an antlered buck under the proposal, hunter participation should not be greatly impacted due to the greater number of anterless permits that are available.

That is not true in the UP and much of the NLP. Assuming the proposal writers are correct (and I am not yet making that assumption) and the number of larger antlered bucks increases, that does not necessarily correlate that they will be any easier to hunt or to locate. They exist now but those that are out there now require the hunter to have a more than normal amount of skill and a more than normal amount of time to invest during the entire year to take such a deer (or a more than normal amount of luck;)). Less luck may be required for that part of the equation under the proposal but I have serious doubts that a large buck will require less skill and a smaller investment of time.

The exception to that statement could be within the confines of larger amounts of private land where conditions could be created which would nearly constitute a private herd. But then could this not happen now especially within large blocks of QDM land or private hunt club lands. They can already determine their private regulations as long as they are within the legal dnr parameters and establishing aprs for those properties would certainly stand within them. So coming full circle why is there the necessity of mandatory aprs when voluntary compliance would accomplish the same goals without the angst. Is the real point of the process to say that voluntary compliance or agreement would never happen?:SHOCKED::confused:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
582 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
QDMAMAN, credibility? Really? I don't need your credibility. Jim Jones had credibility with his followers. Jerry Sandusky had credibility with his followers. He!!, Hitler even had credibility. You have credibility with a few in these forums, good luck with that.

I have something MORE important than credibility, and that is integrity and character. You can earn false credibility by streaching the truth as my examples above prove. Integrity and character are things you build from within.

It doesn't bother me that you nit-pick my post and try to twist what I say to enhance your credibility. You are percieved as being on a misson and will say and do anything to advance your agenda. I on the other hand have nothing to gain by my position other than protecting the hunting styles and traditions of the vast majority of Michigans hunters.

If 85% of deer are taken on private property then why the desire to control the other 15%? Go forth and practice your APR's. Just do it quietly and leave the rest of us alone.

ps; Thanks Newaygo1 for the encouraging PM.
 

·
Tornado Jim
Joined
·
19,989 Posts
Bio, inreference to post #2 above, I have seen much worse on many threads and they were not closed.

I have never said ALL of the hunter drop since 2008 was due to HC (APR"S). Can you really say they have had no effect on hunter #'s? If you can you are not being realistic.
Here's what you said (my bolded emphasis):

Justin, in response to your post 171 above you are absolutely correct. We have achieved the same results in the U.P. as a result of APR's. In 2008 we had 107,412 hunters in the U.P. Last year the number dropped to 97,971. LINK post 175
Without question you blamed a 9% drop in hunter numbers in the UP on APRs. If you wonder why your credibility was questioned, may be because you have not acknowledged that it is unlikely that the 9% drop had anything to do with APRs, since there was a concurrent 9% drop in the NLP, and an 8.5% drop in the UP during the 4 years prior to the one you cited. You pulled numbers out of your rear end and then would not admit they smelled bad.

I could personally care less what your anecdotal opinions are. If you had just said that your annual ball was half the size it used to be, I might just chuckle and wonder if better beer or hamburgers would help:lol:. But you didn't just use your anecdotes, you tried to make the point that the 9% reduction in hunters in the UP is due to HC regulations. If you want to argue that any element of that 9% was because of APRs, you would need to explain why it was falling at the same rate the previous 4 years.

Lastly, follow the money. You are in business making a living from successful hunting properties, no wonder you support these initiatives. My motives are just wanting a level playing field for all hunters with NO financial gain, period. da Appleknocker :)
I have no idea what you are talking about here:confused:.

How will HC in the UP (or anywhere else) help my business? Please enlighten me. If you are right. I might step up my interest:lol:. Problem is, I don't see the connection. We have clients in all 50 states and several provinces.
 

·
Tornado Jim
Joined
·
19,989 Posts
Can you really say they have had no effect on hunter #'s? If you can you are not being realistic.
I can say this. I am absolutely certain that some hunters decided not to hunt the UP any more because of HCs. I am also certain, from looking at the trends in the NLP and in prior years in the UP, that it is so small a number that it really does not show up in the state data. It is very likely that for every hunter who decided not to hunt up there, there were others who said, hey, I like that idea, and started going up there. At any rate, there is nothing in the hunter numbers that indicates a relationship between hunter retention or decline and HC.
 

·
Tornado Jim
Joined
·
19,989 Posts
That is not true in the UP and much of the NLP. Assuming the proposal writers are correct (and I am not yet making that assumption) and the number of larger antlered bucks increases, that does not necessarily correlate that they will be any easier to hunt or to locate. They exist now but those that are out there now require the hunter to have a more than normal amount of skill and a more than normal amount of time to invest during the entire year to take such a deer (or a more than normal amount of luck;)).
This could be true but so far the data from Leelanau county show a slight trend towards increased harvest per hunter and certainly do not show a downward trend (other than the first year after introduction of APRs).
LEELANAU county hunter success bucks (%).


Similarly, I plotted the UP data for hunter success (% of hunters getting a buck). There was one year of decline ('09), but the last two years are almost at the mean from '00 to '11. Those years are lower than 5 earlier years, and higher than 5 earlier years. Without the extreme success of the '00 season being included the last two years would be above the mean.



My speculation about this is that several factors may be involved. One is that hunters are likely to see more bucks, because they have the protected cohort of 1.5 year olds that are running around. Just seeing bucks has a way of keeping hunters more alert and on stand longer. Plus, the younger bucks that are passed are often there for a reason, and are often followed by older bucks. Sightings of more mature bucks go way, way up when you are passing on the younger ones. They clearly use these younger bucks as sacrificial lambs and almost always trail them into areas. My personal experience is that I started seeing older bucks only after I stopped shooting at the first buck I saw.

Another element is that as the buck to doe ratio increases, there is a lot more competition for does, and older bucks are a lot more likely to be up off their feet.

Finally, it might be that guys are staying on stand longer. Mean days afield has increased about 9% in Leelanau county whereas hunter numbers have remained stable. So hunters are spending more time afield. In fact, since they count hunter days, rather than hours, it very well may be hunting effort has increased even more than 9%, since hunters may be staying in their stands longer during each hunt because under APRs, the hunting may be just a whole lot more exciting because they are seeing so many more bucks.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
582 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Bio, again putting words in my mouth. In post #179 of that thread I posted, "I realize that the economy had a LOT to do with this drop but I hunt with a lot of camps that have closed up because of APR's."

Last year I talked to a couple of hunters who came to the U.P. to hunt after three years of MAR's and thought there would be an eight point behind every tree. Boy were they disappointed and stated they won't be back.

MAR's are like the QDMA literature describes them, "unnessary and burdensome". Many U.P. hunters feel that way and have had their hunting experience diminished because of false promises and a flawed decision by the NRC. HC, no matter what THEY call it is still MANDATORY antler point restrictions and should have followed the required process.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,864 Posts
This could be true but so far the data from Leelanau county show a slight trend towards increased harvest per hunter and certainly do not show a downward trend (other than the first year after introduction of APRs).
LEELANAU county hunter success bucks (%).


Similarly, I plotted the UP data for hunter success (% of hunters getting a buck). There was one year of decline ('09), but the last two years are almost at the mean from '00 to '11. Those years are lower than 5 earlier years, and higher than 5 earlier years. Without the extreme success of the '00 season being included the last two years would be above the mean.



My speculation about this is that several factors may be involved. One is that hunters are likely to see more bucks, because they have the protected cohort of 1.5 year olds that are running around. Just seeing bucks has a way of keeping hunters more alert and on stand longer. Plus, the younger bucks that are passed are often there for a reason, and are often followed by older bucks. Sightings of more mature bucks go way, way up when you are passing on the younger ones. They clearly use these younger bucks as sacrificial lambs and almost always trail them into areas. My personal experience is that I started seeing older bucks only after I stopped shooting at the first buck I saw.

Another element is that as the buck to doe ratio increases, there is a lot more competition for does, and older bucks are a lot more likely to be up off their feet.

Finally, it might be that guys are staying on stand longer. Mean days afield has increased about 9% in Leelanau county whereas hunter numbers have remained stable. So hunters are spending more time afield. In fact, since they count hunter days, rather than hours, it very well may be hunting effort has increased even more than 9%, since hunters may be staying in their stands longer during each hunt because under APRs, the hunting may be just a whole lot more exciting because they are seeing so many more bucks.
I do not dispute your statistics but I might suggest additional explanations. First from my off site cursory overview, it would seem that Leelanau may be a very nontypical peninsula county. If the NW proposal passes or is enacted it will be very interesting to see if there is any notable variance among the counties over 5 or more years from that of Leelanau.

As for the UP, I would suggest that winter severity and predation has as great a factor towards hunter success [and maybe more] than do the APRs. The one thing that I believe I see from your charts is that a greater time period with more factors being correlated would be important in making the best assessment of APR impact on hunting success.
 

·
Tornado Jim
Joined
·
19,989 Posts
I do not dispute your statistics but I might suggest additional explanations. First from my off site cursory overview, it would seem that Leelanau may be a very nontypical peninsula county. If the NW proposal passes or is enacted it will be very interesting to see if there is any notable variance among the counties over 5 or more years from that of Leelanau.

As for the UP, I would suggest that winter severity and predation has as great a factor towards hunter success [and maybe more] than do the APRs. The one thing that I believe I see from your charts is that a greater time period with more factors being correlated would be important in making the best assessment of APR impact on hunting success.
Agreed, more data are needed.

But what the chart clearly shows is that there has not been a loss of opportunity for individual hunters after the first year. In other words, so far, it argues against the idea that there will be a decline in hunter success because of A:ps.

The annual fluctuations seen here seem to show up whenever we chart hunter success, and I believe you are right in saying that hunter success and things like winter severity are likely explanations.

Even in the SLP, if you get a lot of rainy days during gun season, you are very likely to see a down year, just because hunters don't
go out as much. The economy can also impact hunter participation (but not likely hunter success).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
413 Posts
Leelanau Buck harvest success trend the last 11 years.....2003 was first year under MAR's. 2008 was first year under bait ban.

Leelanau 2001 - 21%2002 - 23%2003 - 15%2004 - 21%2005 - 23%2006 - 29%2007 - 31%2008 - 22%2009 - 19%2010 - 28%2011 - 26%

Swamp and others want to try and use the data to show how bad hunting has been under MAR's in DMU045. When in reality current success rates remain above Pre-MAR's years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
156 Posts
trust me, you all (whoever is doing it) are going to ruin an excellent avenue for us outdoors men to discuss and yes even disagree with each other.

obviously I had a post deleted, and no I never swore, and yes I corrected the original thread starter and yes I was right, and then poof my post was gone.(the cost of venison).

But see, we will lose good posters, posters who care, posters who want to "contribute". big word, contribute.

I seen it happen first hand, if whoever is in charge here thinks they will keep making money off the adds that surround this page (all of the adds on every page) and your banking on that for your future, Id take a closer look at how you "let" these forums work.

jus sayin
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,287 Posts
It could the contradicting statements like this that make one skeptical of the APR message.....Or Is gas that much cheaper in Ohio and Ind.?:lol:
I simply would rather spend the gas money to hunt in areas with higher deer densities. I dont mind spending the money just not in areas where i dont see what im looking for. Simple enough for you now:yikes:
 
1 - 20 of 38 Posts
Top