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.
61 - 80 of 110 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,079 Posts
I voted yes.
Anything that might get the so called meat hunters that dont care about headgear to shoot a doe. I hear it all the time. Guys saying they dont care about racks so they shoot the first guy that walks by. Now they got there meat so no need to shoot a Doe.
I think APR will benifit doe harvest numbers when its said and done.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,127 Posts
I voted yes as well. I would love to see a two buck, 4 or more on a side rule in the SLP. I'd even be OK with a one buck only rule as well, as long as it was also 4 or more points on a side. I just wish that more people could experience the intensity and rush of the rut with a "mature" whitetail herd.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
290 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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
188 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.
This seems like a HUGE generalization of private land vs. public land hunters. I have hunted both over the years, as well as several of my friends and family. Regardless of where they were hunting they had the same amount of time invested in hunting.

I just got done hunting Missouri's public land and a chunk of private land......there was absolutley no difference between the two when it came to the quantity and quality of deer we seen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,138 Posts
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.
The DNR has the actual numbers in their survey on how many days the average hunter spends afield. Many of us that go out of state are in the same boat, only there for 4-10 days. What makes us willing to drive so far and spend the money for such a short hunt on public land? Ill tell ya why, quality of deer on public land in other states. You see the results the qdm co-ops are having in michigan, many of which are not improving their land. The big change is letting the deer get another year older, not feeding him something. There are still people in other states that shoot small bucks, seems one of the propertys I hunt that is private is like that. I will likely head to Missouri now that they have had a 4pnt restriction. The hunting will only get better with restrictions, not worse. Guys arent seeing deer now, no change is not going to help that. Id rather see a few bucks that didnt meet the APR, then to not see any deer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,665 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
878 Posts
We now go to Missouri every year for 7-8 days, a state that has adopted MARS to much of the state (4 points on one side). In discussions with numerous local hunters, this was very much to the intitial dissatisfaction of Missouri deer hunters for many of the same reasons we hear in Michigan "The DNR shouldn't tell me what I can shoot...etc". However, we are now several years into this MANDATORY restriction and the response is nothing short of outstanding. I have asked some of those same hunters their thought now and it is a complete 180. No, they do not have the number of hunters we have but so what. Their archery season opens Sept. 15, they have a youth hunt the last weekend of October, and a 10 day firearm season that opens the second Saturday of November. There are many similarities and I can say from experience that the number of quality bucks is incredible.

Time for a change in Michigan. Make this state a place where local hunters want to stay and spend their money in local establishments during a week vacation, not spending in other states. I would gladly stay here if I thought I had similar chances at a quality, older buck, but that just is not the case.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,665 Posts
What's wrong with big antlers? Everyone likes good racks, everyone.
Consider this, one who states they don't care about antlers, given the choice between a 160lb mature doe, and a 120lb forkhorn. 90% of the time, from a 'meat' hunter...guess what gets shot if they have choice? Yep, the forkhorn.
Take that same hunter, that same forkhorn and set it next to a 120 lb 8pt, guess which one gets shot? Yep, the 8pt.

Anyone can say whatever they wish, but this is the truth. Everyone cares about antlers, some are just more serious than others, but make no mistake....everyone is about the antlers. I have yet to hear from any of the taxidermist friends that I have, tell me that his shop is overflowing with doe shoulder mounts. ;-)

Ps. Take all three deer and the same hunter, guess what he shoots? Now which deer yields the most meat? We all know the answer, and guess what, really there is nothing wrong with that. Just don't hide truths with nonsense, the real world doesn't work that way.
Posted via Mobile Device
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,917 Posts
I agree everyone dreams of antlers, But given a choice between APR'S AND A REDUCTION IN HUNTER SUCCESS RATES OF 40-60%..... I believe the majority especially in areas where doe permits are NOT AVAILABLE would be quite happy with any buck.

And there nothing wrong with you guys saying you want bigger antler's......So why do you all try to hide it with the other terms you use?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,937 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
·
5,665 Posts
I don't hide it, I make no apologies for it either. Here is the rub, does it make any sense whatsoever to complain about the Northern herd getting 'wiped out' and to stop with antlerless deer, with no restrictions on buck harvests? It doesn't even make rational sense. I see it as a rational step in a complimentary management style to very carefully walk thru your doe harvest, but place some reasonable restrictions on bucks as well. You cannot honestly believe if the herd is truly being decimated that stopping the doe harvests will help with numbers will make sense without restrictions on bucks, you truly live in a fools paradise.
I will entertain the thought, please bear with me. If the numbers are really that bad, take your word on it, the DNR will make adjustments. They have in the past, while the herd is trying to recover, the pressure on the bucks will be astronmical (especially the 1.5 year old class) without regulations on buck harvests. Currently, what is on the table are APR's. It still gives you options, you don't have to buy the combo license and harvest one buck of your choosing 3inches or better. If you purchase the combo tag, quite a few of the 1.5 year old will receive much needed protection, but still have the option of getting one of that age class if you really want to. You can still get your second buck, with tighter restrictions. With all of this being said, if its that bad, why would a consciencous hunter even fathom taking 2 bucks, quite possibly in the same age class anyways is beyond me. I grew up hunting in the 80's and remember what that was like. Deer everywhere, couldn't get a doe permit. Clamping down the doe harvest does make sense, but if it is really that bad, would it not be very prudent to place restrictions on the buck harvest beyond current regs to ensure viable hunting in the future? If you don't place some restrictions on bucks while clamping down on the does it will get as bad or worse than the traditional management practices in the 80' and into the early 90's. Everyone will be upset and belly aching about not seeing bucks, and will kill the very first buck they see, and turn around and look for another one. Been down that road before, it didn't work out to well. We need some restrictions on our buck harvest, especially in the areas where the herd has been hit the hardest.
Posted via Mobile Device
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,423 Posts
I agree everyone dreams of antlers, But given a choice between APR'S AND A REDUCTION IN HUNTER SUCCESS RATES OF 40-60%..... I believe the majority especially in areas where doe permits are NOT AVAILABLE would be quite happy with any buck.

And there nothing wrong with you guys saying you want bigger antler's......So why do you all try to hide it with the other terms you use?
Hell I want bigger antlers. The bigger the better. The hope and chance for a big mature buck carrying massive head gear is the one thing that keeps me in the woods from October-December, and roughly 6days a week the rest of the year.

If it weren't for that...my hunting season would last about three days...I'd kill two or three does to fill my freezer, then be done with it. I'd have no other reason to travel, spend money on hunting supplies/goodies, or even chillax on this forum.

The reality, is that big bucks will boost small local economies more than allowing baiting or high deer numbers. Think of the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent by MI hunters in OH, IL, IA, IN, MO, KS, TX, WI, etc. Probably 3,000-4,000 per hunter for a 7 day hunt....those funds going to hotels, eating establishments, gas stations, grocery stores, sporting good stores, etc. There are a lot of small business in the UP and NLP that would really benefit the most from having private and public lands carrying a population of mature bucks with big antlers.

That is something that could happen but only if every single hunter...private and public land hunter is on the same page as far as letting the small bucks walk.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
55 Posts
GVDocHoliday,

I've been saying that for years.

Michigan is sitting on a gold mine in our deer herd. We could choose to manage it so that it would be best in the nation. We have the genetics, we have the food, we have the cover. All we need is protection and age for our bucks. If we had an older age class of bucks out of state hunters would be standing in line to spend money in Michigan. Instead the MDNRE has decided to undervalue our deer herd and sell mass quantities of $15 dollar tags to everyone who want to kill an immature buck.

Hey I have an idea, let's have the MDNRE even go a step further. Maybe they should stand at the state line and personally discourage out of state dollars from entering. They could hold up signs saying " MDNRE sold the deer herd, keep out!"

Its all about economics. If you create a deer herd that's valued, hunters will pay. I'd gladly pay twice as much for a resident deer tag if we had a healthy herd will proper age structure and proper buck/doe ratio. Wouldn't you?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,844 Posts
I voted yes: however, I do feel that we may need to tweak things for different regions of the state as well. I wouldnt mind 3 on a side and 4 on a side with the combo tags. Problem is that will help the northern regions a great deal with buck age structure but in the SLP thats still yearling bucks. I dont see how you do it in SLP cause I saw numerous bucks with 3 or 4 on a side this year that were last years fawns.

Ganzer
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
253 Posts
I agree with the restrictions, I hunt state land in northern MI, and private by my home in Mid-MI. The one problem I see with the doe tags is in the area I hunt in northern MI is they give private land owners tags and state land gets none. I find this a problem. You would think we would see all sorts of deer yet out of our group of four hunters that hunted the 13th thru the 17th we only saw 4 deer total and I saw three of them. This system has been going on for years. If you give out tags give them to all or none. All this proves is that the private land owners, some not all are going on to state land and harvesting does dragging them to there property and tagging them. Why else the low sightings. I think it's time for the DNRE to start managing the deer right and stop the nonsense.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,232 Posts
I voted yes: however, I do feel that we may need to tweak things for different regions of the state as well. I wouldnt mind 3 on a side and 4 on a side with the combo tags. Problem is that will help the northern regions a great deal with buck age structure but in the SLP thats still yearling bucks. I dont see how you do it in SLP cause I saw numerous bucks with 3 or 4 on a side this year that were last years fawns.

Ganzer
Hope you guys don't mind making the sacrifice for your NLP brothers and sisters!!!:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,138 Posts
I agree with the restrictions, I hunt state land in northern MI, and private by my home in Mid-MI. The one problem I see with the doe tags is in the area I hunt in northern MI is they give private land owners tags and state land gets none. I find this a problem. You would think we would see all sorts of deer yet out of our group of four hunters that hunted the 13th thru the 17th we only saw 4 deer total and I saw three of them. This system has been going on for years. If you give out tags give them to all or none. All this proves is that the private land owners, some not all are going on to state land and harvesting does dragging them to there property and tagging them. Why else the low sightings. I think it's time for the DNRE to start managing the deer right and stop the nonsense.

Here is another one of those guys. We hunted hard, didnt see but a couple deer. Then complain they need doe permits to shoot the couple deer they did see. Hunters in this state would shoot every deer if possible, to show they are great hunters, then piss n moan next year when there are no deer. Then to imply the hunting on state land is bad, cause "some" private land owners are hunting it and shooting does with their private land tags? Please.......

Swampbuck, 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.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
19,600 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.
 
61 - 80 of 110 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top