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 - 1 of 1 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
303 Posts
Public land habitat improvement should be the first priority.
Being a Public land hunter, APRs just do not seem right. Probably 80% of the people that purchase a license to hunt are only going to be in the woods hunting for 5 days or less. Many of these people (including myself) are busy trying to manage marriages, heavy work schedules, and children. Managing deer is not the priority! With the onset of “QDM” and the sprouting of local CO-OPS throughout the state, many of the private landowners that want APRS already have them. These are done on a voluntary basis and if you ask those landowners, these (APRs) are successful. The advantage that the landowners have is the ability to improve their land by putting much resource (time/money/education) into the habitat of said piece of property. Many if not all of these upgrades include “attractants” such as food and cover. So for the private landowner APRs do not mean as much because they are now attracting the deer and can be very selective with what they choose to harvest. Now Joe public does not have that option as he may take a week off or 2 days to try to get his/her deer. To further restrict what Joe public can harvest will most likely drive him away from the sport all together. Public land hunting is challenging enough, don’t make it outright impossible to enjoy as more and more deer are being pulled from the public lands to the private sanctuary’s these people are creating.
Moving to statewide APR is widening the gap between the haves and the have not’s.
Read some of the posts from many of the APR supporters (QDM Forums) and you will see that while many are informative, many are ripe with arrogance.
 
1 - 1 of 1 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top