If everybody gave it 2 years to develop (passing on 2s 4s 6s), nobody would have an issue with it. Honestly that's all I think it would take to see our age structure do a 180.

4 on one side is a stretch when I think about the large 6 points I've seen taken in big rapids, no brow tines in those genes.

Make it happen, let's add michigan to the lips of hunters that talk about big buck states.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

The one thing that concerns me is sustainability. Do we have the natural resources to sustain the mass increase in the number of deer if an APR is instated. I feel that in the first year or two there will be a massive increase in the herd size and we will be facing an overpopulation situation, which will put us in a worse spot than when we started. It may give you a warm and fuzzy feeling to think the harvest numbers will be offset by an increase in doe harvests when people simply are seeing legal bucks, but I do not think this will be the case. I do not feel that the DNR should mandate the size deer that I shoot. Their concern should be maintaining the population level be sustainable to the amount of natural resources available.

Here I go again..........

I voted no. No one has singled out the NEL and the TB areas. You can not........ have AR's in this area and reduce the TB rate ( see the state's own scientific facts). However, only time will tell how bad they messed it up this year with the current regulations. If you "let em' go so they can grow" in this area, the chances of having TB increase substancially. "A 2 1/2 year old buck is four times as likely to carry bovine TB as a yearling. By the age of five that same buck is 12 times more likelier to carry TB as it did as a yearling." (Dr. Steve Schmitt, DNRE wildlife veterinarian)

Makes sense Encore. This area is an area unto itself with the TB issue.

Reminder: Comments will be allowed, however please direct them to the APR work group and not eachother. This forum will follow the same rules and guidelines as the whitetail forum.

I voted no because it really does nothing to improve herd age structure here in southern MI. I would be more in favor of OBR.

I can't help but wonder how much the license sales will have to decline before the mdnr realizes it was all a big mistake. No different than lumping all the southern michigan counties into unit 486. Which will eventually leave some area's with no deer and yet other area's with too many, that's already happening.

After reading over 20 posts, for or against, or just an opinion, it was imperative that this subject be brought up. The last working group that worked on it (this area) and thought they had the answer, made a mess out of things. People in this area are still upset about it and the science that they claimed was behind it. Oh, the DNRE..... Russ Mason, "We don't know if it will work. We don't know what to do."

However, this area WITHOUT FAIL, has to be considered by itself and not included in any other suggestions/recommendations for any other part of the state. All members of any APR working group need to keep this area as a priority in their minds. As a matter of fact, helping with suggestions/recommendations, based on science and common sense would be useful for our "area specific" problem.

I'd have to say, that under normal circumstances, such as not living in the TB area, I could probably live with a six (6) point or better rule for a three year trial. I've held myself to an 8pt of better CHOICE for a number of years and would continue to do so, except for some of the science that I've learned for this area. I've seen some monster 6pts taken and wouldn't pass one up myself. Some of those bucks may never have produced better racks than they already had.

Even though I still have a problem, trying to explain to someone from the "city" that only has three or four days available to hunt each year, they he/she can only take a 6pt or better. And they probably have to hunt state land. Its certain that it will drive many people away from deer hunting. Once it drives a dad or mom away, we've lost the next generation also.

It just seems like APR's are like giving a kid candy for the very first time. Once they have it, they want more and more, until their teeth are full of cavities. Now, I'm in no way trying to say that those that favor APR's are kids or trying to demean them. I'm just asking, where's it going to end and will the means justify the end?

Will a statistical approach be made by the working group or, will it be made on opionons? Will the statistics show the differences in private land owner hunters, private land hunters and state land hunters? There's a lot of work ahead of someone..........

Downsea said:

Makes sense Encore. This area is an area unto itself with the TB issue.

Click to expand...

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.

Then go with a doe license and buck permits

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.

From the Missouri Wildlife Divisions MAR'S Results:
'The antler point restrictions has little effect on the doe harvest in the northern counties, but in the central APR counties the doe harvest increased an average of 13 percent over the four-year period. The APR reduced the harvest of antlered deer in both the northern and central counties. The reduction ranged from 35 percent in 2004 to 14 percent in 2007 in the northern counties, and from 37 percent to 19 percent in the central counties. The reduction consisted mostly of yearling bucks, because the majority of bucks in this age class did not qualify as a legal deer under the APR. Total harvest declines in the northern counties ranged from 14 percent in 2004 to 8 percent in 2007, and from 3 percent in 2004 to no change in the central counties. Continuation of the APR likely will result in 5-10 percent fewer deer harvested annyally in the northern APR counties and will have no effect in the central counties.'

Pinefarm said:

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.

Click to expand...

The anterless harvest in the northern lower is already adequate to more than adequate in all areas with the possible exception of agricultural areas. Therefore the idea of utilizing APRs as a method to encourage the doe harvest has no credence in that part of the state.

The factors that most affect antler growth or an increase of number of bucks in a particular age strata are available nutrition, winter severity, and positive habitat for the whitetail herd. Commercial poaching can also make a marked difference in any given area. Coyotes in large numbers as we have now can take a large proportion of fawns and thereby reduce the possible number of bucks for that age segment. There are too many other factors besides APRs that contribute to the supposed trophy buck population for APRs to make a marked difference in northern lower Michigan.

APRs will however lower the probability of hunter success and thus reduce the number of hunters willing to continue in the support of whitetail hunting. This issue will further divide the traditional hunters that pursue the activity for its enjoyment, table fare, recreation,etc from those that solely hunt whitetails for the goal of taking, what they consider to be, trophies.

Noone will have to worry about what the antihunting population will do to the activity of whitetail hunting because segments of the activity itself, that suggest regulations heaped upon regulations will mean positive whitetail management, are dividing and eroding the support for whitetail hunting all by themselves. It is time to encourage a solid base of support for whitetail hunting. That will not happen by focusing on a narrowly defined goal such as valuing the whitetail hunting experience by antler size alone.

Is it possible to completely eliminate TB in Michigan? Or is it here to stay?

If mature bucks have a much greater chance of getting/having TB shouldn't our efforts be more focused on killing those animals? Doesn't seem like it would do much good to harvest a bunch of young deer that probably dont have the disease.

Bovine TB has been here for a hundred years at a minimum. It will not be removed by hunting methods. There is no justification in asserting that APRs can have a positive effect in reducing the percentage of TB victims in the whitetail herd.

well said.

ridgewalker said:

The anterless harvest in the northern lower is already adequate to more than adequate in all areas with the possible exception of agricultural areas. Therefore the idea of utilizing APRs as a method to encourage the doe harvest has no credence in that part of the state.

The factors that most affect antler growth or an increase of number of bucks in a particular age strata are available nutrition, winter severity, and positive habitat for the whitetail herd. Commercial poaching can also make a marked difference in any given area. Coyotes in large numbers as we have now can take a large proportion of fawns and thereby reduce the possible number of bucks for that age segment. There are too many other factors besides APRs that contribute to the supposed trophy buck population for APRs to make a marked difference in northern lower Michigan.

APRs will however lower the probability of hunter success and thus reduce the number of hunters willing to continue in the support of whitetail hunting. This issue will further divide the traditional hunters that pursue the activity for its enjoyment, table fare, recreation,etc from those that solely hunt whitetails for the goal of taking, what they consider to be, trophies.

Noone will have to worry about what the antihunting population will do to the activity of whitetail hunting because segments of the activity itself, that suggest regulations heaped upon regulations will mean positive whitetail management, are dividing and eroding the support for whitetail hunting all by themselves. It is time to encourage a solid base of support for whitetail hunting. That will not happen by focusing on a narrowly defined goal such as valuing the whitetail hunting experience by antler size alone.

Click to expand...

I second the one buck rule, or possibly a earn a buck.

If its not possible for hunting to have a positive effect then it can't be possible to have a negative effect either, right?

ridgewalker said:

Bovine TB has been here for a hundred years at a minimum. It will not be removed by hunting methods. There is no justification in asserting that APRs can have a positive effect in reducing the percentage of TB victims in the whitetail herd.

Click to expand...

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.

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)