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 - 10 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,867 Posts
The science is, APR's have increased antlerless kill by roughly 15% in Minnesota and in about 1/2 of the Missouri APR zones, along with most of the PA program.
Increasing antlerless harvest is the main goal of APR, not the "sugar" of more mature bucks.
The whole point of restricting most yearling bucks is that more hunters will opt to take an antlerless deer for the freezer instead of a yearling buck, which has been and is still normal practice in Michigan.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,867 Posts
Anything north of M-46 can't handle essentially unregulated, essentially unlimited antlerless tags, for public and private a like, in any firearms season. The option on taking 2 antlerless deer with a bow, anywhere, is almost too liberal now, in many northern area's.

The only way "either sex" or antlerless tags for all in firearms season is close to viable with 650,000 firearms hunters is if tags were issued by specific county only and by lottery, like the Illinois firearms tags.

In an "open borders" deer hunting state like Michigan, where anyone can choose to hunt from Hillsdale to Houghton, and buck tags are good for any and all area's in between, APR's are the best approach, especially when lowering the current 2 tag system to OBR isn't fiscally possible.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,867 Posts
Encore,
Missouri expanded the counties under APR's after that first report. Obviously they saw neutral impact in some area's and positive impact in enough to further expand the regs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,867 Posts
The Missouri Conservation Commission has more than doubled the number of counties included in the so-called "four-point rule." This regulation was tested in 29 counties from 2004 through 2007. This year, with strong support from hunters, it will apply in the same counties as before, plus 36 new counties.
(66 percent favored and 22 percent opposed)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,867 Posts
Fishx,
You are correct. We currently have APR's. They're 3" on one tag and 4pt's on at least one side for the other tag.
Basically, the issue is about tweeking the 3" tag to something more. Perhaps "no spikes", at least one forked antler, 3pt's on one side (likely in the northern 2/3's) and possibly 4pt's on one side (SLP).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,867 Posts
For the same reason so many choose salmon or musky fishing over catching 6" bluegills off a dock.
Both are fishing, both are outdoors, but they offer different thrills.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,867 Posts
A couple thoughts...

Assuming it's 50/50 that statewide APR's will only apply to the combo tag, like we already have in the UP and NELP, why can't a hunter shoot a spike if that's the case? All he/she needs to do is buy a single buck tag.

If hunting area's have such low deer populations, like we hear here of much of the NLP, should hunters really expect more than one buck a year? Maybe large parts of the NLP should only have hunters expecting one buck?

After 2 years of APR's, how do we know Michigan will suffer an overall reduction in success rates?

The majority of Michigan deer hunters already hunt in area's where antlerless tags are available. That being the SLP and southern tier of zone 2. So, antlerless tags are available to the majority of Michigan deer hunters.

Going back to Missouri, they did recently expand APR's in a pretty big way. Was that expansion met with great outcry?

Just a couple thoughts to chew on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,867 Posts
Swamp,
I'm sure you looked at the declines in all the DMU's around 045.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,867 Posts
Certainly, that's why I posed the question. I don't see where 045 has a 40-60% greater reduction in harvests compared to the counties around them.

If APR's are the problem, then 045 wouldn't have similar reductions as the nearby counties, all because herds have been lowered elsewhere and are in heavy snowbelts with winter loss, but 045 would have 40-60% greater reduction in harvests. I don't see it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,867 Posts
Twodogs,

The fear is, after we get some kind of statewide APR's, all the time, effort and 1000's of posts railing against changes will be proven wrong.

For some, fighting changes has become personal and they have a personal investment in fighting the DNR and changes.
 
1 - 10 of 11 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top