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.

Statewide APRs

18K views 109 replies 57 participants last post by  Neal 
#1 · (Edited by Moderator)
Do you support Statewide Antler Point Restrictions?



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.
 
#2 ·
I said no on this one because the antler development between the souther part of the state and the northern are much different. So I do not see how state wide APR would work in the SLP as to how they would work in the NLP or UP. IMO the goal of APR's is to help advance the age structure, and in the SLP the normal APR's would still allow for alot of 1.5 y/o bucks to be killed. I witness many 1.5 y/o bucks who sport 6 to 8 points in their first year of growing antlers.
 
#8 ·
I voted YES but I think that the APR should apply to the various zones (SLP, NLP, and UP) or even on a county level. I think that on the county level it would be harder to control than if it were on a zone level. Even if the3 or better on one side APR were put into effect for the whole SLP it would still protect some 1.5yo bucks. Just my .02 though...
 
#10 ·
I voted yes. But I don't support it for anyone under 18. You need to make sure you hook them into hunting deer before having restrictions and maybe any first year hunters over the age of 18 should qualify for an exemption .
 
#12 ·
No.,,, but if you're trying to advance buck age structure,,, why not just go with a "no spike's" rule??
I would also rather see a "no spike" rule more than anything but I would vote for an APR if thats my only choice. I just hope this doesnt involve combo tags only like da U.P.

CB
 
#13 ·
Just incase any one of important reads this why not just a one buck rule state wide?
This way hunters can shoot what they want, but just one.
I ask every hunter I converse with after they shoot a "small" buck, if they only had one tag to put on a buck if they would of shot this one, all say no.
 
#14 ·
Just incase any one of important reads this why not just a one buck rule state wide?
This way hunters can shoot what they want, but just one.
I ask every hunter I converse with after they shoot a "small" buck, if they only had one tag to put on a buck if they would of shot this one, all say no.

:yeahthat:
 
#16 ·
I voted yes because it was the closest to what I think. It would need to be split into NLP, UP, SLP obviously. The OBR would work for the best I think.
 
#21 ·
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
 
#22 ·
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.
 
#23 ·
Here I go again..........:dizzy:

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)
 
#26 ·
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top