Michigan Sportsman Forum banner

Do you believe Antler Point Restrictions are a social or scientific deer management p

  • Social

    Votes: 96 33.1%
  • Science

    Votes: 33 11.4%
  • Some of both

    Votes: 161 55.5%
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,993 Posts
I believe it's mostly social but conveniently has some science. Which is OK with me. I understand why they had the mandate for scientific reasoning only in management decisions(vote to end bear hunting) and I like that they are cheating when it comes to sportsmen issues. The block is still there for anti hunters but social issues between sporstsmen must include social science to resolve them and create optimal value within the resource.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,443 Posts
It's a baby step toward more science oriented management. I believe science is the best tool to manage wildlife. That said, I would be open to some social science being applied in the area of recruitment.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
19,596 Posts
The DNR has already spoken on this one, Brent Rudolph stated at the first APR workgroup meeting that APR initiatives were a purely social measure. The Wildlife division has previously gone on record before the NRC stating that there is no compelling biological reason to implement antler point restrictions and that doing so is purely to satisfy hunter desire.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,867 Posts
Define "social" please? Is managing how hunters harvest deer thru "trigger management" seen as social?

When APR's increase antlerless kill, help balance sex ratio and allow for older buck structure than typical in many area's since the advent of traditional deer management in the 1920's, is that then social or science?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,357 Posts
Interesting that over 90% believe that APRs are at least partially a social practice yet based on the other poll over 60% want them. Oh well, not all that shocking I guess.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,867 Posts
Are new regulations that most likely amount to better controlling the overall state deer herd social or science? One could easily argue science. What is the line between social and science when talking about outcomes?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
364 Posts
Most of Michigans land mass is in private ownership. The owners have allways had the power to manage their land for deer the way they see fit. They do not need more regulations. They have allways had the power to manage their land.

Most if not all Public Land in Michigan is at or below deer density goals. There is no need to place more restrictions on this land to control the population.

Since public land is not where the problem is, APR's are nothing more than controling the neighbors trigger finger and force him to make the decision that is socially exceptable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,920 Posts
Most of Michigans land mass is in private ownership. The owners have allways had the power to manage their land for deer the way they see fit. They do not need more regulations. They have allways had the power to manage their land.

Most if not all Public Land in Michigan is at or below deer density goals. There is no need to place more restrictions on this land to control the population.

Since public land is not where the problem is, APR's are nothing more than controling the neighbors trigger finger and force him to make the decision that is socially exceptable.
Very well said, And it is being pushed on the public land hunter primarily for and by the landowners, So the public hunter wont shoot their sparky's
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
582 Posts
FYI, at the first meeting of the APR workgroup the overall majority of participants felt that mandatory APR's were not feasible and I believe were dropped from consideration. The workgroup now is discussing the current procedure for determining if APR's will be used in a DMU. Currently it takes a 66% approval but the QDMA wants that reduced to 51%. Also the curent survey answers are YES, NO, NO OPINION and DON'T CARE. No opinion has no value and Don't care is used as a NO vote. The QDMA wants the Don't care to have no value so that just the YES ans NO votes are considered. Keep in mind that this post is just a condensed version of 6 hours of presentations and disscussions. Please join us at the next meeting in December.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,920 Posts
Is the QDMA directly involved ? Or is the qdma trying to influence the proccess ?

I believe it is so important that it bears repeating again........ Any valid poll must be COMPLETELY RANDOM. I also think it should include all hunters. But in any case it should include several times more Hunters than were included in previous polls,
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
582 Posts
Swampbuck, yes the QDMA has a rep in the workgroup. He missed the first meeting of the group and tried to revisit issues settled by the group at the first meeting to no avail. I personally don't want to make it easier for anyone to get APR's for any DMU, but on the same note I think the process should be fair. I think Neil did a fine job putting togeather the questions in this poll. But the main issue is, do you believe that APR's should be achieved by EDUCATION or by REGULATION? Currently the education route is working but not fast enough some selfish hunters.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
19,596 Posts
FYI, at the first meeting of the APR workgroup the overall majority of participants felt that mandatory APR's were not feasible and I believe were dropped from consideration. The workgroup now is discussing the current procedure for determining if APR's will be used in a DMU. Currently it takes a 66% approval but the QDMA wants that reduced to 51%. Also the curent survey answers are YES, NO, NO OPINION and DON'T CARE. No opinion has no value and Don't care is used as a NO vote. The QDMA wants the Don't care to have no value so that just the YES ans NO votes are considered. Keep in mind that this post is just a condensed version of 6 hours of presentations and disscussions. Please join us at the next meeting in December.
Just to set the record straight, not sure what your source is but this is not a very accurate representation of what has occurred so far at the workgroup meetings, in my opinion.

It's unclear what you are referring to when you say mandatory APR's not being feasible. If you are referring to state wide APR's, there was no discussion and certainly no consensus regarding them either being feasible or being dropped from consideration, the topic of state wide APR's was not discussed.

QDMA is represented by one individual on the workgroup, as is Safari Club, Mid-Michigan Sportsman's alliance and a number of other organizations. There are sixteen primary individuals involved in the workgroup, QDMA is represented by just one of them. QDMA is certainly not driving the discussions, their Representative was not even present at the first meeting. As far as the discussion regarding the different survey questions, all of the members of the workgroup offered input and opinions, not just QDMA, in fact compared to some, the QDMA rep offered very little input.

Most of the meeting last week focused on a presentation by Brian Frawley of the MDNR, explaining the statistical methodology that the DNR uses in formulating their harvest surveys and other reports and how that methodology would potentially apply to APR surveys.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
582 Posts
Munster, as I said previously this was a condensed version of the discussions. I have kept meticulous notes and these are my recollections of the discussions. At the first meeting everyone was ask their feelings toward APR's and the overwhelming majority spoke against mandatory statewide APR's. Just my observations. I thought people that can't attend might want to know whats happening. Feel free to express your recollections as this is an important issue for todays deer hunters.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
19,596 Posts
Munster, as I said previously this was a condensed version of the discussions. I have kept meticulous notes and these are my recollections of the discussions. At the first meeting everyone was ask their feelings toward APR's and the overwhelming majority spoke against mandatory statewide APR's. Just my observations. I thought people that can't attend might want to know whats happening. Feel free to express your recollections as this is an important issue for todays deer hunters.
My recollection of the discussion from the first meeting in regards to Mandatory APR's was not in the context of a statewide restriction but simply whether individuals favored a mandatory or voluntary approach to APR's. I'd concur that the overwhelming majority voiced opposition to mandatory APR's but it was not my impression that the opposition was limited to an all encompassing statewide APR, it was opposition to mandatory APR's in general, which I was kind of surprised by (not to say that I was disappointed. ;))

In regards to your earlier observation about the individual who missed the first meeting, yet wanted to re-visit the discussion that took place in his absence, I thought he handled it badly and came off as kind of petulant, there was a good amount of eye rolling going on while he was complaining but I thought that JR did a pretty good job of handling his objections.

It's encouraging that MS is pretty well represented on this workgroup, by my count there are 5 MS members involved as either primary or alternate workgroup members. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
413 Posts
"Currently it takes a 66% approval but the QDMA wants that reduced to 51%. Also the curent survey answers are YES, NO, NO OPINION and DON'T CARE. No opinion has no value and Don't care is used as a NO vote. The QDMA wants the Don't care to have no value so that just the YES ans NO votes are considered." quoted by da appleknocker.


Just to clarify for those taking less than adequate notes at the first two meetings. The QDMA is in favor of a 60% approval. Also using just Yes or No votes to tally the results as well.



 

·
Registered
Joined
·
968 Posts
Science will always be the best way of making almost any decision because it puts a logical process in place rather than yeilding to the person willing to shout the loudest and longest.

That being said, you can never completly ignore the social aspect of a leisure activity like hunting. Hunting is, essentially, a social sport. Deer camp, father to son interactions, etc.

Lastly, I question whether science can do an adaquate job with limited resources. Science undoubtedly works better with better data, and I question many of the methods that the DNR currently uses to gather their data. However, I don't claim to have an easy (inexpensive) fix to this issue.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,154 Posts
Purely social. I believe APR's cause "High Grading". If you take your best 1-1/2 yr. olds out of the herd because they make the APR's set by law and are legal to shoot, you will see an overall degradation of the buck population.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,398 Posts
Purely social. I believe APR's cause "High Grading". If you take your best 1-1/2 yr. olds out of the herd because they make the APR's set by law and are legal to shoot, you will see an overall degradation of the buck population.
How is that different from whats currently happening now? Those same 1.5yo are still being taken out of the herd.

Are you telling me that "high grading" is taking place right now?
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top