Michigan Sportsman Forum banner

Do you support Statewide Antler Point Restrictions?

  • Yes

    Votes: 277 67.7%
  • No

    Votes: 132 32.3%
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 5 of 5 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
19,596 Posts
I do not understand why some hunters seem to see whitetail hunting as a pursuit for antlers alone
Because everyone knows that a true sportsman could never simply take pleasure and deep satisfaction from the totality of the hunting experience, if the end result fails to score at least 120". You can tell from this guys expression that he is one of those miserable low lifes that has no regard for the resource, due to his clear refusal to "let em' go, so they can grow." Clearly he was unhappy with the quality of his hunting experience. :p

 

·
Banned
Joined
·
19,596 Posts
Ill "man up" as you put it, I want a herd with a more diverse age structure, so I have a decent chance at seeing and hopefully shooting a buck with big antlers. Now for those opposing restrictions, man up and admit you just want easy hunting and anything that implys a challenge in trigger control is out of the question for you.
Kenn -
After watching that video that you posted where you filmed numerous younger bucks on opening day, I can understand why you might be bored and frustrated that you are not seeing trophy caliber bucks. I've also come to the conclusion that someone coming from that kind of a hunting environment will never understand what hunting in many of the Northern parts of the State is like. You see more bucks (or deer, for that matter) in one morning, then many Northern hunters will see in 5 or 6 years. It's not because you are some kind of hunting god or because they are crappy or lazy hunters (as you seem to imply), it's simply due to the differing deer densities and land ownership patterns in different parts of the State.

You guys want mandatory APR's so badly, then lobby for them to be applied across the board in the SLP. I'll back you 100% in that effort, I'll even join you speaking in front of the NRC promoting mandatory APR's for the SLP. But understand that hunting conditions are vastly different in other parts of the State and what the potential consequences will be for the casual hunter who has to pass on putting some meat in the freezer, all so that another hunter can put an extra 20" on the wall. Walk a mile in their shoes before you are so quick to judge.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
19,596 Posts
However if there were antler restrictions, there would be more deer,
Why would you think this?

Has not happened in Leelanau Co. or in Pennsylvania or Missouri, none of those APR's resulted in a larger herd. In fact the reason the DNR enacted them in DMU 487 recently was supposedly to reduce the size of the herd further.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
19,596 Posts
Swamp,
I'm sure you looked at the declines in all the DMU's around 045.
Have you?

He stated that success rates under APR's declined after the initial 5 years. If you look at the last two years success rates for the 3 counties around DMU 045, compared to the Pre-MAR's baseline period, Leelanau had success rates below the baseline, Benzie slightly below 2 years ago and the same as the baseline average last year, Grand Traverse both had a higher success rate the last two years then the baseline average and Antrim had a higher success rate the last two years then the baseline average.

So out of 6 years of data to compare to the 2 years of declining success rates in DMU 045, 5 out of the 6 saw increases, not declines.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
19,596 Posts
All that shows is a reduction in total population which is good for an area. Show me age class percentages of those bucks harvested in 2009. Mind you, 2009 trended way low state wide as far as overall harvest due to the severe winter previous of that fall.
Doc -

The population in DMU 045 was about 15% below stated DNR goal prior to APR's being implemented. It was kept low intentionally to reduce agricultural damage to cherry orchards. The DNR has stated that they would like to increase the population. If APR's caused the population to decrease further from that 85% under stated goal level when APR's were initiated, would that still be good for the area?
 
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top