APRs Statewide...Pro or Con??

[SwampCat]

A lot of studies indicate that much of a buck's headgear is attributed to the doe - and not just her genetics. How early a buck is born in the year and the number of siblings. For example, a buck fawn born early in the season with no siblings - in general - is going to produce a better set of antlers as a 1.5 yr old than a buck fawn with a sibking born a month later later. I am not sure the apr's contribute to high grading the young buck crop to the extent somenof us might think.

At least on my place - one thing I know for a fact about my deer herd - the surest way to add inches of antler is adding age. Age trumps great food plots, great habitat, passing the bucks with so called "better genetic" - all of that. Putting age on a buck is key - and protecting a sizeable percentage of young bucks through the use of apr's does just that.

 

[j-bird]

I also am not wild about a state-wide part either. Many states have different regions with different habitat and the like. I know this is certainly true here in IN. The central part of the state (essentially north of I-70 and I-74) is very flat and heavily farmed. The southern portion (below those interstates) is much more hilly and has much more timber/forest type cover to it as a general rule. As such the soil fertility, food availability and the shear numbers of deer can fluctuate pretty wildly....a yearling growing up in farm country I would suspect would have more antler development (more points) than say one in a very densely forested region, so trying to apply a "blanket" type policy across such a wide area (like an entire state) is not going to have the same affect everywhere. An APR of 3 in my area may not save many yearling bucks or 2 year olds for sure, while only a county or two away it may save many. This is where state DNR's have to understand what they are doing.....painting with broad strokes isn't always the best tactic. It would be like blindly saying food is the limiting resource for deer so EVERYBODY needs to plant food plots. That simply isn't true, even though in some cases it may be very true.

This is where I get real frustrated and that is where the DNR prefers to apply broad practices across a diverse area instead of truly managing on a more regional level. They try to turn a game of chess into a game of checkers, simply because it's easier on them, even though it may impact the resource negatively in some areas. They don;t need to micromanage the deer....however they need to acknowledge the different regions and manage according to what is best for the resource in those regions....and that means being active, in the field, across those regions and doing what is best for the RESOURCE! Not the politicians, not just the hunters, not just the farmers, not just the insurance companies....their JOB is to protect the resource, not make some particular group happy! Ok - getting off my soap-box now.....sorry.

 

[SwampCat]

I also am not wild about a state-wide part either. Many states have different regions with different habitat and the like. I know this is certainly true here in IN. The central part of the state (essentially north of I-70 and I-74) is very flat and heavily farmed. The southern portion (below those interstates) is much more hilly and has much more timber/forest type cover to it as a general rule. As such the soil fertility, food availability and the shear numbers of deer can fluctuate pretty wildly....a yearling growing up in farm country I would suspect would have more antler development (more points) than say one in a very densely forested region, so trying to apply a "blanket" type policy across such a wide area (like an entire state) is not going to have the same affect everywhere. An APR of 3 in my area may not save many yearling bucks or 2 year olds for sure, while only a county or two away it may save many. This is where state DNR's have to understand what they are doing.....painting with broad strokes isn't always the best tactic. It would be like blindly saying food is the limiting resource for deer so EVERYBODY needs to plant food plots. That simply isn't true, even though in some cases it may be very true.

This is where I get real frustrated and that is where the DNR prefers to apply broad practices across a diverse area instead of truly managing on a more regional level. They try to turn a game of chess into a game of checkers, simply because it's easier on them, even though it may impact the resource negatively in some areas. They don;t need to micromanage the deer....however they need to acknowledge the different regions and manage according to what is best for the resource in those regions....and that means being active, in the field, across those regions and doing what is best for the RESOURCE! Not the politicians, not just the hunters, not just the farmers, not just the insurance companies....their JOB is to protect the resource, not make some particular group happy! Ok - getting off my soap-box now.....sorry.

I agree with you - the questions is who is calling the shots on how to best protect the resource. We have one area of the state - the delta - that grows obviously larger deer. A lot of the hunters in that area think the apr is high grading their young bucks - because most of their 1.5 year old deer are above the apr. A biologist may think a balanced herd with a low density is the best thing for the resource - the deer and the habitat. Farmers and insurance agencies may agree. Hunters may think the best thing for the resource is to maintain the herd at close to, but just below carrying capacity. You have hunters who just want to kill a legal deer. Others think if it isn't a wall hanger, it doesn't need to be shot. Some want a balanced buck/doe ratio - some want lots of does so they see lots of deer. Some don't hunt with a bow and some don't hunt with a firearm. Cant suit us all.

 

[Baker]

Years ago they asked Henry Kissenger what the solution to the Middle East problem was. He cleared his voice and said ' the solution to the Middle East problem is that there is no solution to the Middle East problem...that satisfies everyone"

Reminds me of the discussion about AR. The closest relationship I have to the question is an 8000 acre property in N. La. owned by 22 folks . For years we have been trying to solve the riddle of meeting the diverse needs of all the members. Those that want their youngster to shoot his first deer. Those that want to hold out for top end trophies. Those that want to see lots of deer.

The club has tried managing by age...challenging
The club has tried managing by beam length....challenging
The club has tried managing by # of points...ineffective { Almost all the yearlings on my farm will be at least 8 pts }
The club has tried managing by restricting # of bucks each member could take...ticked everyone off

Currently they are trying as best they can to manage by age [ 4 or older ] with some success. Of course many of the best 3 yr olds get shot as 4 yr olds. There is no absolute way to determine age. And bucks with lesser quality antlers tend to be the ones that get the most age. The good news is that having been on this program for several years now the older age classes are increasing creating more opportunity and harvest last year equaled harvest numbers from years ago except the harvest population was of older bucks. Sounds familiar to much of the discussion I see above.

What I do know is that most bucks get better with age however that is accomplished.
The last thing most managers anywhere need to be concerned about is cull bucks
Nutrition is great but the value is compromised [ eliminated? ] if deer aren't allowed to age.

 

[Mennoniteman]

We all have an opinion, but I think this is fact in Pennsylvania, quoting dogghr: "
Certainly the loss of the culture of hunting camps and everyone just happy to take a deer, to mostly individual hunting for the so-called mature deer, I think has hurt hunting recruitment. It is now all about the deer, and not the comradiery now"
I'm neutral on AR, but have seen the above happen to friends and acquaintances first hand in PA. The average hunters hunting experience has suffered, but for the better hunters it has improved.

 

[X-farmerdan]

I guess I'm concerned about what the future of deer hunting is going to look like in the broadest sense. Forget antler point restrictions for the moment. I don't know what the general attitude about the sport might be. I can share what I hear from about 2 dozen people I hunt with, and they all have different values.

Like with some other states I follow, the number of license sold here in Virginia continues to decline. As it does, the prices go up to cover the costs of the agency "managing" the deer herd. Which drives down license sales. But, that's not the only reason for the shrinking number of hunters. I'm not sure I know what those reasons might be. Dogghr said and Mr. Mennoniteman reiterated, we've lost the idea that comradery has value. Deer hunting has turned into an individual sport, I guess. Here in Virginia it seems like the deer season will never ends, and maybe that devalues the experience, I don't know.

My response to the question is, I think antler point restrictions creates a couple different classes of hunters and dividing the the hunting population is never good for the overall governance of anything. I mean we can have different opinion, values, and views, but at the end of the day we all need to come to some common agreement to keep the sport strong.

Let me ask, are we losing hunters -- and influence. If so, why? A dangerous question to ask, I know. Generational differences don't count! Or, maybe they do. What say ye? And do antler point restrictions help or hurt the deer hunting culture? Maybe its been asked and answered.

 

[SwampCat]

I guess I'm concerned about what the future of deer hunting is going to look like in the broadest sense. Forget antler point restrictions for the moment. I don't know what the general attitude about the sport might be. I can share what I hear from about 2 dozen people I hunt with, and they all have different values.

Like with some other states I follow, the number of license sold here in Virginia continues to decline. As it does, the prices go up to cover the costs of the agency "managing" the deer herd. Which drives down license sales. But, that's not the only reason for the shrinking number of hunters. I'm not sure I know what those reasons might be. Dogghr said and Mr. Mennoniteman reiterated, we've lost the idea that comradery has value. Deer hunting has turned into an individual sport, I guess. Here in Virginia it seems like the deer season will never ends, and maybe that devalues the experience, I don't know.

My response to the question is, I think antler point restrictions creates a couple different classes of hunters and dividing the the hunting population is never good for the overall governance of anything. I mean we can have different opinion, values, and views, but at the end of the day we all need to come to some common agreement to keep the sport strong.

Let me ask, are we losing hunters -- and influence. If so, why? A dangerous question to ask, I know. Generational differences don't count! Or, maybe they do. What say ye? And do antler point restrictions help or hurt the deer hunting culture? Maybe its been asked and answered.

There are multiple reasons why we are losing hunters, and APR's are probably at the bottom of the list. Gone is the day you pick up your bow or 30-30 and drive outside the city limits and walk out on Farmer Browns's land and start hunting. Leases in most places run north of $15 per acre. We are losing small game hunters - and it used to be, you shot squirrels before you hunted deer. No more - hardly anyone small game hunts - for a variety of reasons - but again, hunter access is probably the biggest reason. Family's and kids are busier now - by far. Kids aren't down at the park playing pick up games of basketball or baseball anymore. They are involved in all kinds of school activities or playing on their phone or computer. Twenty years ago, when Mr. Palmer shot Cecil the Lion with a crossbow, his local newspaper would have had his picture on the front page heralding him as a great hunter and would have told the story about his worldwide accomplishment. My son has gone on a couple African Safari's - and he tell no one about it other than his family and a very few close friends. It is a shame when you legally kill an elephant, buffalo, or leopard - and cant tell anyone about it fearing some type of public retribution. In addition, much of the hunting ground is a long drive - where a lot of it use to be close. Public land is crowded. Mom's and Dad's are busier now - working and carrying kids to activities - and they don't have as much time to hunt or take the kids hunting. And hunters have changed - it is more like a competition now - than a relaxing past time. There is nothing about the sport - in my opinion - that is attractive to new hunters.

 

[dogghr]

Thanks for a civil discussion, this got ugly on the old forum. Varied opinions even in my own mind. I guess what caught me off guard is my buddy was never a horn hunter, cussed the initiation of the limits, hunts much public land with heavy orange army, yet is now a staunch supporter of rules. And to not shoot anything less than 20 in spread these days I never thot I'd hear him say.
As stated, main ingredient of antler size is age. We prove that here in our bow hunting only counties that have poor soil, no ag, mature forests, yet produce 150+ in good numbers. Low pressure, difficult land to hunt, good cover, allow the bucks to make it year after year.
As for the hunting culture changing, I think it is just a window of our society as a whole. If you grew up poor as I did, you hunted public land usually, went togethter with family and friends to camp or even have cheap cabin. The fun was in the escape for many, the deer were just a bonus. Fast forward, incomes are phenomenal for most young, they can afford a lot of different hobbies and travel, and while hunting is of interest, doesn't consume their lives as it always has mine.
The other factor of hunting change, is land is no longer in the thousands, or even hundreds of ac, but is subdivided in sections often no more than 20 ac. Sharing the land has become harder. Where once I could walk across anyone's property without any complain, now that fence is there to make sure the unknown neighbor does not set foot on you place or heaven forbid, shoot your deer. And yes my place is fenced and posted.
Back to APRs, my opinion, is that they would help my goals at this stage in my life. What will be lost is it marries most hunters to a fixed stand. They will lose fun of the stalk hunt, or the adrenaline rush of shooting a running deer in the woods, or the love of the warm body that just gave its life regardless of antler size and the long drag off the mountain. Huge loss in that smile.

 

[CTM1]

I cannot help but think that eliminating gun hunting during the rut would increase the age class of deer more then anything else.

 

[dogghr]

I cannot help but think that eliminating gun hunting during the rut would increase the age class of deer more then anything else.

Probably would have some advantage. But PA has had its rifle season after the rut for at least 40 years and it had no real affect until they implemented APR.
One or even two buck rule is a viable option I think that allows everyone to take deer they want. At present, we can take 6 bucks and up to 7 doe in a 3 mo season. In past years, I've certainly tagged out many a season but now will shoot only a buck or two and some doe depending on population.

 

[j-bird]

The DNR here made a proposal to shift our general firearms season to the "edges of the rut" here and I thought there was going to be a riot! Best thing ever happened here was our one-buck-rule. No more, shooting a dink, to say you got a buck and then hunting for a trophy. Now you kill a buck, it better be the one you want 'cause you only get one. It does however shift more pressure to antlerless harvests, so you have to watch what your priorities are.

 

[X-farmerdan]

I probably think way too much about this stuff. In all of our discussion I would propose we assume that our game managers are there to make sure we get a good hunting experience. I know we know this, but to bring light to it again, deer management is as much or more about keeping the herd size reduced to minimize crop and forest damage, and to eliminate car-deer collisions. How you fit APR or any other hunter related consideration into that can be tricky.

 

[SwampCat]

I probably think way too much about this stuff. In all of our discussion I would propose we assume that our game managers are there to make sure we get a good hunting experience. I know we know this, but to bring light to it again, deer management is as much or more about keeping the herd size reduced to minimize crop and forest damage, and to eliminate car-deer collisions. How you fit APR or any other hunter related consideration into that can be tricky.

I think the question is - what is a good hunting experience? Some hunters think seeing a legal buck is a good hunting experience. Others, it takes considerable horn to make them happy. Still others like to see a lot of deer. Our G&F has decided the best thing is a balanced herd - maybe not a true 1:1 ratio - but as close as practical. Our regulations allow two bucks - both of which must meet the 3 pt on one side antler restriction. The bag limit is six does, and there are more days when does may be taken than bucks. Their plan was to shoot the does down to the number of bucks to balance the herd - as opposed to greater restrictions on buck harvest - allowing their numbers to increase up to the number of does. Their plan works OK on large leases and large pieces of private ground. On public and small private owned tracts - it gives the hunter no option to manage the herd - other than shoot them. Large leases and large private tracts may have self imposed regulations that protect does or certain classes of bucks - and it will actually work because of the amount of land controlled. A hunter on public land or small private land tracts is always subject to what the hunter in the next stand does. Our G&F gives DMAP participants extra doe tags, cull buck tags, and even months of extra firearm season. There is NOTHING extra a public land or small private land owner can do. You can pass every deer you see - just for your neighbor to kill them. I own about 300 acres and we don't kill does - at all. An adjoining neighbor owns 5 acres and has allowed his three grandkids to all take a doe. I have public on one side of me, and the sheer number of hunters keeps the population beat down. Basically, we don't shoot antlerless deer so that our neighbors can. G&F gives me no options to increase populations on my own property. Their standard response is, "we cant micromanage every corner of the state. You need to provide better habitat." I am retired and that is pretty much all I do is work on providing better habitat. That is their excuse to not providing the public land hunters and small land owners an option. It is easy to reduce the deer herd on your property - it is difficult - and sometimes impossible - to increase the herd.

I think our G&F's idea of a "good hunting experience" is seeing a couple deer per year and killing one of them every couple of years - as long as they maintain the harvest near the record harvest number. That is not my idea of a "good hunting experience". I like to see deer. I like to sit on the stand with a reasonable expectation that I will see a deer. I know it doesn't happen all the time - but when you go hunting and don't expect to see one - or it surprises you when you see one - that is not a good hunting experience to me.

 

[Mennoniteman]

Swampcat and xfarmerdan are getting to the real issue, how many antlerless tags the state is issuing. In Pennsylvania APR came in as part of a Gary Ault package, the other part being a wholesale slaughter of our doe herd. Deer hunting on public lands tanked as a result and hunter resentment against the PGC simmers to this day, with APR getting some of the blame because that was the part of the package that was glorified, and the big increases in antlerless tags was kept low key. Deer hunting on our million acres of SGL used to be a great experience, now it's slim pickings. If the PGC would allow our deer herd to get back to a reasonable level I believe APR would be a great thing.

 

[dogghr]

Swampcat and xfarmerdan are getting to the real issue, how many antlerless tags the state is issuing. In Pennsylvania APR came in as part of a Gary Ault package, the other part being a wholesale slaughter of our doe herd. Deer hunting on public lands tanked as a result and hunter resentment against the PGC simmers to this day, with APR getting some of the blame because that was the part of the package that was glorified, and the big increases in antlerless tags was kept low key. Deer hunting on our million acres of SGL used to be a great experience, now it's slim pickings. If the PGC would allow our deer herd to get back to a reasonable level I believe APR would be a great thing.

Review what I said my PA buddy thots were concerning what you just said. Evidently he has much diff opinion. Hunts public land in north central PA. His surprising comments knowing his past is what started this thread. But then PA is a large state.

 

[Mennoniteman]

Review what I said my PA buddy thots were concerning what you just said. Evidently he has much diff opinion. Hunts public land in north central PA. His surprising comments knowing his past is what started this thread. But then PA is a large state.

Sorry, I kind of did reiterate what you said at first, to end up with a different opinion. But I will stick to my position. I have many hunting friends and acquaintances who after the big doe kill saw their junior hunter children lose interest in hunting. After going for several years and hardly ever seeing a deer they took up other hobbies. Those of us who had private spots fared much better.

 

[SwampCat]

I believe some G&F agencies sell the "balanced herd" notion to justify the antlerless deer reduction. They tell you if you balance the herd by reducing the does (they never suggest increasing the bucks), you will have healthier, bigger deer and bigger horns because their will be less competition for food. In addition, they tell you their will be a more intense rut because there is more competition for the does.

What I have actually observed at my place once this "balanced herd" management plan was implemented was a less stable population because there are fewer does and fewer fawns which are more affected by droughts, floods, predation, etc. it takes longer for the population to recover after a decline. There are also much fewer deer in the population. Their are fewer bucks to go around - so hunters become less selective - and fewer bucks make it to 4.5 and 5.5 years of age. Since the implementation of the "balanced herd" approach - my local bachelor herd has lost almost a year in average age and probably 15" of average antler size. And a lot of the bucks go on walk about during the rut in search of does because it doesnt take long to breed the few does we have. We dont shoot does off our main property.

 

[Gator]

I'd take a reduction in tags over APRs in Virginia. APRs in my opinion will help to reduce yearling harvest.

 

[Tap]

I'd take a reduction in tags over APRs in Virginia. APRs in my opinion will help to reduce yearling harvest.

Isn't a reduction in yearling buck harvest a good thing?

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[SwampCat]

I'd take a reduction in tags over APRs in Virginia. APRs in my opinion will help to reduce yearling harvest.

That is exactly what they do.