PDA

View Full Version : Michigan DNRE is researching Statewide APR's


big woods hunter
10-20-2010, 01:17 PM
The Michigan DNRE has form a workgroup of Hunting Organizations and Private Citizen's to research and formulate a gameplan for implementing Statewide Antler Point Restriction's for 2011.

Just wondering what everyone's thought's are about APR's and it's efectiveness as a managment tool?

I'm new to the QDMA principles and practices. I am trying to learn as much as I can to feel in my own mind as educated as I possibly can.
With that said, I have been practicing my own "voluntary" APR's for about the last 4 sesons now. It was difficult at first but now has become extremely enjoyable watching the younger bucks live a little longer.

One other question. Since I am a public land hunter 98% of the time...do you feel APR's will benefit the private land or public land hunter more? Or both?

Thanks for any input...I want to make the best educated vote I can if it comes down to that.

Munsterlndr
10-20-2010, 02:55 PM
Just a minor correction, the purpose of the workgroup that has been established is to review and make recommendations to the NRC (Natural Resources Commission) for how the process should work for private organizations petitioning the NRC for implementing APR's in specific Deer Management Units. As far as I know the NRC has no plan to implement APR's Statewide any time soon in Michigan, certainly not in 2011.

The proposal that has been made by the Northwest Chapter of QDMA, would be to implement APR's into 12 counties (DMU's) in the Northwestern Lower Peninsula. Currently 1 Co. in the NWLP has APR's in place. There is currently a moratorium on new APR proposals in Michigan, which will continue until the NRC comes up with new guidelines for how the process will work, which is the purpose of the workgroup mentioned above, to come up with a recommendation on this issue for the NRC. The process should be complete by next June at the latest.

soggybtmboys
10-20-2010, 04:46 PM
Just a minor correction, the purpose of the workgroup that has been established is to review and make recommendations to the NRC (Natural Resources Commission) for how the process should work for private organizations petitioning the NRC for implementing APR's in specific Deer Management Units. As far as I know the NRC has no plan to implement APR's Statewide any time soon in Michigan, certainly not in 2011.

The proposal that has been made by the Northwest Chapter of QDMA, would be to implement APR's into 12 counties (DMU's) in the Northwestern Lower Peninsula. Currently 1 Co. in the NWLP has APR's in place. There is currently a moratorium on new APR proposals in Michigan, which will continue until the NRC comes up with new guidelines for how the process will work, which is the purpose of the workgroup mentioned above, to come up with a recommendation on this issue for the NRC. The process should be complete by next June at the latest.

If there is a current moratorium on APR's, how did they find their way into the NELP, specifically the TB zone? Or did the moratorium come into play after that regulation was put into effect for the NELP?:confused:

Munsterlndr
10-20-2010, 06:32 PM
If there is a current moratorium on APR's, how did they find their way into the NELP, specifically the TB zone? Or did the moratorium come into play after that regulation was put into effect for the NELP?:confused:

The moratorium has been in place for the last three years. It's a moratorium of sponsored APR initiatives. The hunters choice options regarding the combo license and individual archery or firearms licenses are not APR initiatives, they are license options and they were enacted by the NRC without any organization sponsoring them and without the normal APR process being followed. In the UP and the TB zone hunters can still shoot any male deer they want with either a single archery tag or a firearms tag, as long as it has 3" or larger spikes, they just can't shoot two antlered bucks in one year. If they use the combo license to shoot two antlered bucks, one has to have a minimum of 3 points on one side and the other has to have at least 4 points on a side.

kansas-andres
10-20-2010, 08:00 PM
They are not effective in Michigan. The only state Ive ever seen that has the data to show that APR's were effective is, Missouri.

The proposal that has been made by the Northwest Chapter of QDMA, would be to implement APR's into 12 counties in the Northwestern Lower Peninsula. IMO, This proposal is going to do nothing but piss hunters off. The sad thing is people are going to place the complete blame on QDMA because their branch is the one sponsoring it. The APR's might help keep a few 1.5 year old bucks alive, but your not going to have a bunch of monster bucks running around Like many Michigan QDMers mistakenly think. If we want more older bucks in Michigan, we need a one buck rule like some of the other states in our region.

soggybtmboys
10-20-2010, 08:12 PM
The moratorium has been in place for the last three years. It's a moratorium of sponsored APR initiatives. The hunters choice options regarding the combo license and individual archery or firearms licenses are not APR initiatives, they are license options and they were enacted by the NRC without any organization sponsoring them and without the normal APR process being followed. In the UP and the TB zone hunters can still shoot any male deer they want with either a single archery tag or a firearms tag, as long as it has 3" or larger spikes, they just can't shoot two antlered bucks in one year. If they use the combo license to shoot two antlered bucks, one has to have a minimum of 3 points on one side and the other has to have at least 4 points on a side.

Ok, thanks for the clarity. The rules and regs call them APR's not license choice or choice options. Any way you look at it, they are restricting the harvest and antler restrictions are a part of it. Will be interesting to see what happens in the next couple of years.

They are not effective in Michigan. The only state Ive ever seen that has the data to show that APR's were effective is, Missouri.

The proposal that has been made by the Northwest Chapter of QDMA, would be to implement APR's into 12 counties in the Northwestern Lower Peninsula. IMO, This proposal is going to do nothing but piss hunters off. The sad thing is people are going to place the complete blame on QDMA because their branch is the one sponsoring it. The APR's might help keep a few 1.5 year old bucks alive, but your not going to have a bunch of monster bucks running around Like many Michigan QDMers mistakenly think. If we want more older bucks in Michigan, we need a one buck rule like some of the other states in our region.

The organization has been taking a beating all the way around in the state, despite of making some in roads in to changing some traditional thinking in terms of deer management. I like the idea of a OBR across the state, but that would be a herculean effort to get passed thru given the size of the herd and the staunch resistance that will press from all sides. Michigan bowhunters will not support this, the farming community will not support this, the insurance compaines will fight this, the dairy community will fight this, and your everyday hunter who already has an attitude towards any changes to regs will fight this tooth and nail. If you don't believe me, go take a wander over at michigan-sportsman.com and you will see it everywhere. You just mention a prospect in changing the status quo, for whatever reason...and you and your posts will be subject to a beating.

Munsterlndr
10-20-2010, 08:45 PM
They are not effective in Michigan. The only state Ive ever seen that has the data to show that APR's were effective is, Missouri.

The proposal that has been made by the Northwest Chapter of QDMA, would be to implement APR's into 12 counties in the Northwestern Lower Peninsula. IMO, This proposal is going to do nothing but piss hunters off. The sad thing is people are going to place the complete blame on QDMA because their branch is the one sponsoring it. The APR's might help keep a few 1.5 year old bucks alive, but your not going to have a bunch of monster bucks running around Like many Michigan QDMers mistakenly think. If we want more older bucks in Michigan, we need a one buck rule like some of the other states in our region.


It depends on what you consider effective. There is no question that the APR's that were enacted 8 years ago in DMU 045 in Michigan, have been effective in protecting the yearling buck age class and allowing more bucks to advance to older age classes. If you don't believe that, then you have not looked at the data. The goal is to create a more robust and structured older age class, not neccessarily to grow "Monster" bucks. If antlers are what you are interested in, then the Northern region of Michigan's lower peninsula is probably not the best greenhouse to conduct the experiment, the Southern Lower would be much better suited for that kind of experimentation. But if advancing some bucks to older age classes is the goal, then the APR's have certainly accomplished that.

Munsterlndr
10-20-2010, 08:50 PM
The organization has been taking a beating all the way around in the state, despite of making some in roads in to changing some traditional thinking in terms of deer management. I like the idea of a OBR across the state, but that would be a herculean effort to get passed thru given the size of the herd and the staunch resistance that will press from all sides. Michigan bowhunters will not support this, the farming community will not support this, the insurance compaines will fight this, the dairy community will fight this, and your everyday hunter who already has an attitude towards any changes to regs will fight this tooth and nail. If you don't believe me, go take a wander over at michigan-sportsman.com and you will see it everywhere. You just mention a prospect in changing the status quo, for whatever reason...and you and your posts will be subject to a beating.

You might want to revisit some recent history concerning the OBR issue in Michigan, about 4 years ago there was an OBR initiative that went down, in a 4-3 vote by the NRC. It was not the insurance companies or the farming community that was involved in behind-the-scenes lobbying trying to convince NRC commissioners not to go with an OBR, it was some highly influential QDMA members who preferred APR's to OBR as a means of protecting yearling bucks, who succeeded in getting the OBR measure defeated. ;)

kansas-andres
10-20-2010, 09:22 PM
take a wander over at michigan-sportsman.com

No thanks, Its all yours :D

smsmith
10-20-2010, 09:25 PM
No thanks, Its all yours :D

x10 - ever since the "dbltree" debacle I lost all respect for that site. Good thing Paul is a better man than I or it would be a complete wasteland over there. Seems to me since that occured that the site's traffic has been cut by well over 50%.

kansas-andres
10-20-2010, 09:29 PM
x10 - ever since the "dbltree" debacle I lost all respect for that site. Good thing Paul is a better man than I or it would be a complete wasteland over there. Seems to me since that occured that the site's traffic has been cut by well over 50%.


Couldn't agree more ;) I heard 75% but I could be wrong.

kansas-andres
10-20-2010, 11:20 PM
The organization has been taking a beating all the way around in the state, despite of making some in roads in to changing some traditional thinking in terms of deer management. I like the idea of a OBR across the state, but that would be a herculean effort to get passed thru given the size of the herd and the staunch resistance that will press from all sides. Michigan bowhunters will not support this, the farming community will not support this, the insurance compaines will fight this, the dairy community will fight this, and your everyday hunter who already has an attitude towards any changes to regs will fight this tooth and nail. If you don't believe me, go take a wander over at michigan-sportsman.com and you will see it everywhere. You just mention a prospect in changing the status quo, for whatever reason...and you and your posts will be subject to a beating.

I know Michigan had a 4 buck limit In the early 90's. I was young then, So I dont remember how Sportsman reacted when they cut the limit in half.

OBR would be tough to get passed thru. IMO, Its a better option than beating around the bush with APR's in different management units for the next 20 years. Im not sure if the QDMA State chapter is looking at proposing OBR in the future or not.

kansas-andres
10-21-2010, 12:21 AM
Im not sure if the QDMA State chapter is looking at proposing OBR in the future or not.


I wanted to answer my own question :D Checked with a member on the QDMA State Chapter, He hasn't heard anyone mention anything about a OBR.

sandbur
10-21-2010, 08:15 AM
The one buck rule has not been the answer in Minnesota. We have had the rule for years, but then allow party hunting. But, Minnesota has different deer populations and also different hunting traditions.

Anyway, I favor education and voluntary passing of bucks. No added regulations.

Mojostick
10-23-2010, 08:26 AM
APR's have been effective. In Minnesota, the DNR used several test zones over the last few years. The result was that antlerless harvest increased roughly 15% with APR's. That's why the Minnesota DNR greatly expanded APR's this year.

In Missouri, the results have been mixed, but still good enough for the Missouri DNR to also expand the area's with APR's.
In the initial testing, some area's saw little increase in antlerless harvests, but others also saw roughly what Minnesota saw, around a 15% increase in antlerless harvests.

In Pennsylvania, the DNR there is happy with the outcome of their APR's and chatter from the public has dwindled to only 25% now opposing APR's in PA.

Munsterlndr
10-23-2010, 01:12 PM
The DNR has stated that the APR's that would be enacted through this process have no biological basis, they are purely a social measure designed to benefit hunters who want to see larger antlered bucks.

The NRC can implement APR's for biological reasons whenever they want, as they did recently in the TB zone, where the thinking was that they would lead to an increased antlerless harvest.

As far as the 12 county area that has been proposed for APR's by the Northwest chapter of QDMA, most of those DMU's are under stated population goals and increased antlerless harvest would most likely not be a result of implementing APR's in most of those DMU's.

Mojostick
10-23-2010, 02:13 PM
Given the steady gradual decline in hunter numbers traveling north and the steep decline anticipated when the baby boomers start dropping out in larger numbers without youth replacement, DNRE is likely content with underpopulation in the north vs overpopulation.
If there is a desire to increase herd numbers, that can be done by adjusting available antlerless tags and with APR's, since more yearling bucks will survive, thus causing a post season increase over the past years post season numbers.
Either way, APR's give antlerless tags, and the ability to better manage herds thru antlerless tags than with liberal buck tags, more bang for the buck, pun intended, since more hunters would be willing to shoot antlerless deer, if or when needed. Better to put the framework in place now, since it will take years for the masses to become accustomed to rule changes. For example, notice still how many hunters don't understand that any hunter can kill 2 antlerless deer with the combo tag, with a bow, anywhere in the state, public or private land. And we've had that tag for what, 15 years now?

As far as social aspects, it's within DNRE's discretion to consider recreational pleasure when setting rules, as pointed out in the 2010 Deer Management Plan...

"DNRE staff identified six principal Goals that incorporate issues and values identified through the public input process: 1) manage deer populations at levels that do not degrade the vegetation upon which deer and other wildlife depend; 2) promote deer hunting to provide quality recreational opportunities, as the primary tool to achieve population goals, and as an important social and cultural activity; 3) manage habitat to provide for the long-term viability of whitetailed deer in Michigan while limiting negative impacts to the habitats of other wildlife species; 4) reduce conflict between humans and deer; 5) reduce the threats and impacts of disease on the
wild deer population and on Michigan’s economy; and 6) Enhance public engagement in and awareness of deer management issues and knowledge of deer ecology and management."

As Russ Mason pointed out in The Detroit News, most hunters want more mature bucks in the herd...

"But don't be surprised if some fairly major regulations change by the 2011 deer season. As officials take public comment through meetings and e-mail, and the advisory teams hammer out recommendations, Michigan hunters have made it known that they want rules that would eventually put more mature bucks in the woods. Some favor antler-point restrictions. Others want a one-buck rule that covers all seasons and weapons. Some want earn-a-buck. Still others say the standard deer license should be a doe tag, and buck tags should be limited to a draw. All those tactics have worked somewhere. All have their drawbacks.

"It's very clear that everyone we talked to is interested in improving the structure of the deer herd in Michigan," Mason said. "The impetus is in creating a better spread in the buck population. There are a variety of ways to accomplish that. One of the most important jobs those teams will have is to begin looking at those different strategies. They could be different in different places."


However, any APR's must be monitored. I think Minnesota has a good approach...

Recommendation 3 – Antler Point Restriction (APR) in Zone 3

We recommend a 4-point APR regulation be adopted in Zone 3 for a period of 6 years. After 3 years, we would re-evaluate the regulation to determine if it should be continued for a minimum of 3 additional years.

This APR proposal will not fundamentally change the deer management system in Minnesota as the primary goal of the deer program is population management. This recommendation should be viewed as a secondary objective that is related to buck management. As it does represent a shift from traditional deer management strategies, a more detailed explanation is warranted. The deer management system that was enacted in the mid 1970’s has served DNR well and continues to be relevant. However, it was designed as a population growth tool that allowed for unlimited buck hunting opportunity during the rut while retrofitting population management by issuing antlerless permits. Changes instituted since 2003 have placed more of an emphasis on population management through liberalized antlerless deer harvest; however, the buck hunting tradition continues as harvest data indicates 45% of hunters do not shoot antlerless deer, despite the availability of half-priced antlerless permits. Add to that is a growing interest from the hunting public for increased opportunity at taking a mature buck. On the negative side, a shift in management strategy has the potential of alienating the individuals who are opposed to protecting bucks and landowners who may not see deer hunters as allies (e.g., not helping landowners alleviate population problems as they are only interested in mature bucks). There is also a belief among some that leasing will increase and larger blocks of land will act as refugia, thereby exacerbating problems to adjacent landowners. Such problems currently exist in the southeast and if APR regulations are to be implemented, a larger communication strategy must be developed.

It's certainly worth a trial period. If it doesn't show any overall improvements, the trial can expire.

CanOpener
10-25-2010, 09:01 AM
Anything is better than what is happening now. My neighbors practice QDM supposedly. They have a 6 point or bigger rule. So when I drive past there place on the 3rd day of rifle season they have 5- 1.5 yr old 6 points hangin', probably a 1.5 yr. old 7 point and maybe 2- 2.5 yr old 8 points. But don't worry, they didn't shoot any spikes:eek: Give me a friggin' break.

Munsterlndr
10-25-2010, 09:17 AM
Anything is better than what is happening now. My neighbors practice QDM supposedly. They have a 6 point or bigger rule. So when I drive past there place on the 3rd day of rifle season they have 5- 1.5 yr old 6 points hangin', probably a 1.5 yr. old 7 point and maybe 2- 2.5 yr old 8 points. But don't worry, they didn't shoot any spikes:eek: Give me a friggin' break.

How would mandatory APR's have changed anything? The highest APR in Michigan that has ever been proposed and passed is a 3 pt. on one side, which all of those yearling 6 points would have qualified for, so how would it have been "better" then now?

kansas-andres
10-25-2010, 08:55 PM
The NRC can implement APR's for biological reasons whenever they want, as they did recently in the TB zone, where the thinking was that they would lead to an increased antlerless harvest.



Thats not the only reason. The NRC is hoping APR's will somewhat force hunters into holding off for an older buck, which are the likely carrier of the disease (TB)

kansas-andres
10-25-2010, 08:59 PM
Anything is better than what is happening now. My neighbors practice QDM supposedly. They have a 6 point or bigger rule. So when I drive past there place on the 3rd day of rifle season they have 5- 1.5 yr old 6 points hangin', probably a 1.5 yr. old 7 point and maybe 2- 2.5 yr old 8 points. But don't worry, they didn't shoot any spikes:eek: Give me a friggin' break.

I know your pain :D

Munsterlndr
10-25-2010, 10:22 PM
Thats not the only reason. The NRC is hoping APR's will somewhat force hunters into holding off for an older buck, which are the likely carrier of the disease (TB)

I realize that was put out for public consumption but it's ridiculous.

Give us one example where APR's applied in a low density area have resulted in a reduction in the number of older bucks in the herd. If protecting younger bucks resulted in fewer older bucks, do you think QDM would employ protecting yearlings as one of it's fundamental tenets?

If APR's will reduce the number of older bucks, why would the DNR contemplate the same regulations in another part of Northern Michigan, in hopes of increasing hunter satisfaction by producing more older bucks?

Sorry, if you have hunted in the lower density areas in Northern Michigan, you will know that there is already extreme pressure placed on bucks of all ages, young and old alike and that it's especially true in the TB zone, where populations have been reduced by 30% over the last ten years. The same APR's as were proposed were enacted 8 years ago in an NLP county just about 75 miles to the west and have resulted in a substantial increase in the number of older bucks in the herd, while actually causing a decrease in the number of antlerless deer harvested, which is the exact opposite of what is desireable for disease risk mitigation.

The DNR is credible most of the time but this one was just beyond being believable.

kansas-andres
10-25-2010, 10:51 PM
I realize that was put out for public consumption but it's ridiculous.

Give us one example where APR's applied in a low density area have resulted in a reduction in the number of older bucks in the herd. If protecting younger bucks resulted in fewer older bucks, do you think QDM would employ protecting yearlings as one of it's fundamental tenets?

If APR's will reduce the number of older bucks, why would the DNR contemplate the same regulations in another part of Northern Michigan, in hopes of increasing hunter satisfaction by producing more older bucks?

Sorry, if you have hunted in the lower density areas in Northern Michigan, you will know that there is already extreme pressure placed on bucks of all ages, young and old alike and that it's especially true in the TB zone, where populations have been reduced by 30% over the last ten years. The same APR's as were proposed were enacted 8 years ago in an NLP county just about 75 miles to the west and have resulted in a substantial increase in the number of older bucks in the herd, while actually causing a decrease in the number of antlerless deer harvested, which is the exact opposite of what is desireable for disease risk mitigation.

The DNR is credible most of the time but this one was just beyond being believable.

I was just pointing out that the reason for the change had other factors other than Antlerless deer, which is a 100% fact. Notice I said "The NRC is hoping " Not my theory, Their theory, Time will tell....

CanOpener
10-26-2010, 10:20 AM
How would mandatory APR's have changed anything? The highest APR in Michigan that has ever been proposed and passed is a 3 pt. on one side, which all of those yearling 6 points would have qualified for, so how would it have been "better" then now?

It wouldn't save any of those bucks I know. I would prefer to see a four on one side requirement, but that won't ever happen until something like this 3 on one side goes through first. Which I'm sure neither of them will happen, but it would be a step in the right direction. Now this is coming from a guy who owns 80 acres in an 800 acre section that practices "somekind" of antler restriction program. But for a guy who is going to go tough it out on state land opening day of rifle season, I feel bad for them because they're not going to see many bucks, if any let alone count 3 points before they shoot them. I don't know, I hesitated to even write anything on this post. But, it's a very debatable subject.

kansas-andres
10-26-2010, 05:07 PM
It wouldn't save any of those bucks I know. I would prefer to see a four on one side requirement, but that won't ever happen until something like this 3 on one side goes through first. Which I'm sure neither of them will happen, but it would be a step in the right direction. Now this is coming from a guy who owns 80 acres in an 800 acre section that practices "somekind" of antler restriction program. But for a guy who is going to go tough it out on state land opening day of rifle season, I feel bad for them because they're not going to see many bucks, if any let alone count 3 points before they shoot them. I don't know, I hesitated to even write anything on this post. But, it's a very debatable subject.

What County is your place in Can ?

CanOpener
10-26-2010, 09:29 PM
What County is your place in Can ?

Osceola County, a little north of Reed City.