Your experience with APR's let's hear it

[Tristate]

Not really. It's not about the youth hunter getting to shoot enough "baby" deer. It's about the portion of the percentage of youth hunters having the option.

It's not a point restriction of 2 or less and we aren't talking about the kid that makes a mistake by miscounting.

I honestly can't understand what you are talking about then.

Kids are pretty understanding of rules and having to play by them. In fact most of them want to be treated as adults. Ive raised 2 hunters living under antler restrictions. They have done just fine. They didn't give up on hunting on years that they didn't get a deer. They see deer every year that they can't shoot because of , antlers, because of range, because of capabilities.

Hunting is very much like the sports they play. Usually their best lessons are the games they loose or the buck that get's away.

 

[Robiland]

if there is a priority of youth hunters opportunity over heard recovery that's fine. just make it that. im simply pointing out at some point they cannot go hand in hand if the goal is controlling harvest of specific requirements for the recovery.

again, dead deer's a dead deer, doesn't matter how old the trigger finger was

I agree with all your points. I have been somewhat against the "youth opportunity" movement. I have 4 kids, 1 just turned 19. But I couldnt even keep up with all the youth hunts and opportunities they have. It is somewhat out of control!!! And the thing is, they dont NEED A TAG OR RIFLE in hand to enjoy the outdoors. I have said this before and I will say it again, my oldest not 19 had been on more hunts (deer, elk, moose, sheep, geese/ducks, pheasants, swans, coyotes, and the list goes on) than he ever had a tag for and he is absolutely addicted to hunting. He says he would rather help than have a tag. He claims it is more fun that way. I agree.

 

[Silentstalker]

The APR has nothing to do with does or fawns. Same situation with muzzy scopes or shorter seasons.

It appears to me they are trying to boost the buck age class on a unit to see how it goes. The same could be done with less tags but that’s a hit on annual revenue which reduces budget.

The real problem most of us understand is we don’t have enough deer, period. Growing the herd has got to take top priority or nothing is going to change.

We have got to stop fighting amongst hunt types, ie scopes-no scopes, season dates etc. none of it is growing our herd.

I will tell you this as food for thought and this is indisputable- one of the very best units in the state of Utah is the Wasatch front extended unit. It is hunted from Aug to the end of November ever day by thousands of hunters. You can shoot a doe or buck. Every year giant bucks are killed and tons of great bucks are also shot. Doesn’t matter how bad the winters or droughts are. Doesn’t seem to be affected by motor vehicle collisions.

How has this happened?

Answer: Very little access and primitive weapons for a very long time.

To grow big bucks you have to severely restrict if not remove the rifle and muzzy hunts. Then you need to protect the deer by severely restricting access. That’s not really possible in the great state of Utah where a common scene on the rifle elk or deer hunt is SxS after SxS driving wherever TF they feel like going - road or no road. Enforcement in this state will always be an issue with any laws.

But, it’s food for thought.

 

[Simpleton]

Here is an excerpt from a paper shared with me by Gary Fralick. I think it is a pretty good source of info from APR results. I have the whole document if anyone knows or cares to look at it, let me know how I can share it.

There is also a table in another paper he sent me that compares age vs outside width:

This portion is only regarding APRs historically in multiple states:

USE OF ANTLER POINT REGULATIONS FOR MULE DEER BY STATE
COLORADO - Colorado implemented antler point restrictions for mule deer on a statewide basis for six years, and for a seven year period in a number of Game Management Units (GMU). These seasons resulted in a shift of hunting pressure on all age classes of bucks (primarily yearlings) to bucks ≥2. Colorado documented a marked increase in illegal or accidental harvest of yearling bucks during this period. The number and ratio of mature bucks did not increase during these 6 or 7 year periods.

IDAHO - Idaho implemented ≤2 point seasons (combined with limited quota seasons for bucks with ≥3 points) to reduce hunting pressure on older bucks and improve post-season total buck:doe ratios. Over the long term, these ≤2 point APR seasons did not improve total buck:doe post-season ratios. However, there were temporary (2-4 years) improvements in post-season adult buck ratios following initiation of this type of APR. Following several consecutive years of increased general pressure solely on yearling males, adult buck ratios returned to pre-
treatment (or worse) levels in the face of this regulation. This reduction of adult bucks following several years of increased pressure on yearlings was the result of dramatically reduced
recruitment of yearlings into the adult buck classes.
Idaho also used a ≥4 point season in big game management unit 73 in the early 2000s in an effort to reduce hunter participation and crowding in this area. The regulation was strongly backed by the public and resulted in increased total buck:doe ratios. However, following several years of APR use, the public became concerned about increasing number of large adult males with 3 point antlers. Complaints about hunter crowding remained during APR use and the area was eventually converted to an “unlimited controlled hunt structure” (hunters selecting to hunt in this area are precluded from hunting in other “general” areas, but “permits” were not limited) in an effort to limit hunter participation.

UTAH - Utah used both ≥3 and ≥4 point over a number of years in numerous GMUs. The Utah Division of Wildlife abandoned mule deer APRs after five years due to significant (>35%) illegal harvest of yearling males, reduced total harvest, reduced hunter participation, shifting hunter distribution, and a reduction in harvestable mature bucks.

MONTANA – Montana has used APR seasons that protect both adult males (≤2 points only legal for a portion of the general season) and seasons that protect yearlings. In the former seasons, results were similar to those in Idaho; a temporary increase in mature bucks followed by a return to pre-APR ratios. Conversely, attempts to increase the number of mature bucks and total buck:doe ratios using ≥4 point seasons in Montana reduced total buck harvest by 28%, and increased illegal harvest of bucks with ≤3 points by nearly 40%. However, harvest of legal bucks having ≥4 points increased when compared to areas without APR, but personnel believed this was unsustainable. Montana personnel suggested this season structure could be detrimental to total buck ratios in areas with limited mule deer security habitats (e.g. areas with extensive road networks).

WASHINGTON - Washington used APRs in select units for mule deer, black-tailed deer, and/or white-tailed deer (WDFW 2010). During APR use, which they continue to employ in select units, Washington experienced a smaller total harvest of mule deer bucks, a switch in some harvest from mule deer to white-tailed deer, and no increase in the number of mature mule
deer bucks. They did experience an increase in total buck:doe ratios as the result of lower total mule deer buck harvest. However, fawn recruitment in these areas also increased at this same time due to improved precipitation and habitat, complicating the analysis. WDFW concludes in their analyses that APRs work to increase buck “escapement” from harvest when combined with short season length.

OREGON – Oregon used an APR regulation for mule deer for a number of consecutive years in the popular Steens Mountain herd, and other wildlife management units. ODFW abandoned this regulation when both the number of older bucks and total buck:doe ratios decreased following 12 consecutive years of APR (≥4 point). They documented significant illegal harvest of bucks ≤3 points and a reduction of 30% of bucks ≥4 points observed following the hunting season. Additionally, legal harvest declined by over 50%. Since APRs did not achieve public desires for more and larger bucks, Oregon has since moved to limited quota to
meet post-season buck ratio management objectives in these areas (ODFW 2003).

 

[Rie bread]

Thank you for taking the time to write up and share this info!

Edit: Seems like it’s a wash in general units

 

[Silentstalker]

Here is an excerpt from a paper shared with me by Gary Fralick. I think it is a pretty good source of info from APR results. I have the whole document if anyone knows or cares to look at it, let me know how I can share it.

There is also a table in another paper he sent me that compares age vs outside width:

View attachment 124772

This portion is only regarding APRs historically in multiple states:

USE OF ANTLER POINT REGULATIONS FOR MULE DEER BY STATE
COLORADO - Colorado implemented antler point restrictions for mule deer on a statewide basis for six years, and for a seven year period in a number of Game Management Units (GMU). These seasons resulted in a shift of hunting pressure on all age classes of bucks (primarily yearlings) to bucks ≥2. Colorado documented a marked increase in illegal or accidental harvest of yearling bucks during this period. The number and ratio of mature bucks did not increase during these 6 or 7 year periods.

IDAHO - Idaho implemented ≤2 point seasons (combined with limited quota seasons for bucks with ≥3 points) to reduce hunting pressure on older bucks and improve post-season total buck:doe ratios. Over the long term, these ≤2 point APR seasons did not improve total buck:doe post-season ratios. However, there were temporary (2-4 years) improvements in post-season adult buck ratios following initiation of this type of APR. Following several consecutive years of increased general pressure solely on yearling males, adult buck ratios returned to pre-
treatment (or worse) levels in the face of this regulation. This reduction of adult bucks following several years of increased pressure on yearlings was the result of dramatically reduced
recruitment of yearlings into the adult buck classes.
Idaho also used a ≥4 point season in big game management unit 73 in the early 2000s in an effort to reduce hunter participation and crowding in this area. The regulation was strongly backed by the public and resulted in increased total buck:doe ratios. However, following several years of APR use, the public became concerned about increasing number of large adult males with 3 point antlers. Complaints about hunter crowding remained during APR use and the area was eventually converted to an “unlimited controlled hunt structure” (hunters selecting to hunt in this area are precluded from hunting in other “general” areas, but “permits” were not limited) in an effort to limit hunter participation.

UTAH - Utah used both ≥3 and ≥4 point over a number of years in numerous GMUs. The Utah Division of Wildlife abandoned mule deer APRs after five years due to significant (>35%) illegal harvest of yearling males, reduced total harvest, reduced hunter participation, shifting hunter distribution, and a reduction in harvestable mature bucks.

MONTANA – Montana has used APR seasons that protect both adult males (≤2 points only legal for a portion of the general season) and seasons that protect yearlings. In the former seasons, results were similar to those in Idaho; a temporary increase in mature bucks followed by a return to pre-APR ratios. Conversely, attempts to increase the number of mature bucks and total buck:doe ratios using ≥4 point seasons in Montana reduced total buck harvest by 28%, and increased illegal harvest of bucks with ≤3 points by nearly 40%. However, harvest of legal bucks having ≥4 points increased when compared to areas without APR, but personnel believed this was unsustainable. Montana personnel suggested this season structure could be detrimental to total buck ratios in areas with limited mule deer security habitats (e.g. areas with extensive road networks).

WASHINGTON - Washington used APRs in select units for mule deer, black-tailed deer, and/or white-tailed deer (WDFW 2010). During APR use, which they continue to employ in select units, Washington experienced a smaller total harvest of mule deer bucks, a switch in some harvest from mule deer to white-tailed deer, and no increase in the number of mature mule
deer bucks. They did experience an increase in total buck:doe ratios as the result of lower total mule deer buck harvest. However, fawn recruitment in these areas also increased at this same time due to improved precipitation and habitat, complicating the analysis. WDFW concludes in their analyses that APRs work to increase buck “escapement” from harvest when combined with short season length.

OREGON – Oregon used an APR regulation for mule deer for a number of consecutive years in the popular Steens Mountain herd, and other wildlife management units. ODFW abandoned this regulation when both the number of older bucks and total buck:doe ratios decreased following 12 consecutive years of APR (≥4 point). They documented significant illegal harvest of bucks ≤3 points and a reduction of 30% of bucks ≥4 points observed following the hunting season. Additionally, legal harvest declined by over 50%. Since APRs did not achieve public desires for more and larger bucks, Oregon has since moved to limited quota to
meet post-season buck ratio management objectives in these areas (ODFW 2003).

Thanks for sharing this info.

I will emphatically dispute the statement that Utah had a reduction of harvestable mature bucks. I realize my experience may be different from others and I know at some point the book cliffs took a huge dive but I would be willing to bet it wasn’t APR that caused that.

And killing immature bucks did happen. It also was a big problem when they initiated the spike only elk hunt but that stabilized with enforcement and time. That’s unacceptable behavior and I would like to think we are better as a group overall then back then.

I have never seen herds of bucks of all age classes like I did back then. It all changed the year they dropped the APR and has never recovered.

 

[muleydude]

Here is an excerpt from a paper shared with me by Gary Fralick. I think it is a pretty good source of info from APR results. I have the whole document if anyone knows or cares to look at it, let me know how I can share it.

There is also a table in another paper he sent me that compares age vs outside width:

View attachment 124772

This portion is only regarding APRs historically in multiple states:

USE OF ANTLER POINT REGULATIONS FOR MULE DEER BY STATE
COLORADO - Colorado implemented antler point restrictions for mule deer on a statewide basis for six years, and for a seven year period in a number of Game Management Units (GMU). These seasons resulted in a shift of hunting pressure on all age classes of bucks (primarily yearlings) to bucks ≥2. Colorado documented a marked increase in illegal or accidental harvest of yearling bucks during this period. The number and ratio of mature bucks did not increase during these 6 or 7 year periods.

IDAHO - Idaho implemented ≤2 point seasons (combined with limited quota seasons for bucks with ≥3 points) to reduce hunting pressure on older bucks and improve post-season total buck:doe ratios. Over the long term, these ≤2 point APR seasons did not improve total buck:doe post-season ratios. However, there were temporary (2-4 years) improvements in post-season adult buck ratios following initiation of this type of APR. Following several consecutive years of increased general pressure solely on yearling males, adult buck ratios returned to pre-
treatment (or worse) levels in the face of this regulation. This reduction of adult bucks following several years of increased pressure on yearlings was the result of dramatically reduced
recruitment of yearlings into the adult buck classes.
Idaho also used a ≥4 point season in big game management unit 73 in the early 2000s in an effort to reduce hunter participation and crowding in this area. The regulation was strongly backed by the public and resulted in increased total buck:doe ratios. However, following several years of APR use, the public became concerned about increasing number of large adult males with 3 point antlers. Complaints about hunter crowding remained during APR use and the area was eventually converted to an “unlimited controlled hunt structure” (hunters selecting to hunt in this area are precluded from hunting in other “general” areas, but “permits” were not limited) in an effort to limit hunter participation.

UTAH - Utah used both ≥3 and ≥4 point over a number of years in numerous GMUs. The Utah Division of Wildlife abandoned mule deer APRs after five years due to significant (>35%) illegal harvest of yearling males, reduced total harvest, reduced hunter participation, shifting hunter distribution, and a reduction in harvestable mature bucks.

MONTANA – Montana has used APR seasons that protect both adult males (≤2 points only legal for a portion of the general season) and seasons that protect yearlings. In the former seasons, results were similar to those in Idaho; a temporary increase in mature bucks followed by a return to pre-APR ratios. Conversely, attempts to increase the number of mature bucks and total buck:doe ratios using ≥4 point seasons in Montana reduced total buck harvest by 28%, and increased illegal harvest of bucks with ≤3 points by nearly 40%. However, harvest of legal bucks having ≥4 points increased when compared to areas without APR, but personnel believed this was unsustainable. Montana personnel suggested this season structure could be detrimental to total buck ratios in areas with limited mule deer security habitats (e.g. areas with extensive road networks).

WASHINGTON - Washington used APRs in select units for mule deer, black-tailed deer, and/or white-tailed deer (WDFW 2010). During APR use, which they continue to employ in select units, Washington experienced a smaller total harvest of mule deer bucks, a switch in some harvest from mule deer to white-tailed deer, and no increase in the number of mature mule
deer bucks. They did experience an increase in total buck:doe ratios as the result of lower total mule deer buck harvest. However, fawn recruitment in these areas also increased at this same time due to improved precipitation and habitat, complicating the analysis. WDFW concludes in their analyses that APRs work to increase buck “escapement” from harvest when combined with short season length.

OREGON – Oregon used an APR regulation for mule deer for a number of consecutive years in the popular Steens Mountain herd, and other wildlife management units. ODFW abandoned this regulation when both the number of older bucks and total buck:doe ratios decreased following 12 consecutive years of APR (≥4 point). They documented significant illegal harvest of bucks ≤3 points and a reduction of 30% of bucks ≥4 points observed following the hunting season. Additionally, legal harvest declined by over 50%. Since APRs did not achieve public desires for more and larger bucks, Oregon has since moved to limited quota to
meet post-season buck ratio management objectives in these areas (ODFW 2003).

Finally........a voice of reason........

APR's never seem to die; I guess for those of us who have been around long enough a new cycle of hunters are now old enough to actually think these will work.

They are a gimmick.......

Just some salient points:

Comparing APR programs in Pennsylvania whitetail herds to Western muler deer herds is not the same thing......not going to go into it, but, with a little research you can understand the differences

APR's DO NOT increase the overall age of the buck population; they actually DECREASE it, and over time the mature buck population at best stays stagnant or overall declines; there is not additional recruitment into the older age classes from APR's; APR's FOCUS the hunting pressure on the older animals because the avg hunter in each State are harvesting 1.5 yr old animals, and now, that hunter who would have shot a 1.5 yr old animal, is now required by law to shoot an older buck. And, that is exactly what happens.

WA State has had APR's for 25 yrs in their mule deer herds; they continue to decline;

Why then are APR's wanted by hunters??? A lot of it is just misunderstanding of the science involved. People think "if we just stop shooting the small bucks, then our populations will be fine". That simply isn't true.

What APR's do though, is increase the avg age of harvested buck from a 1.5 yr old to a 2.5 yr old. In Western mule deer herds that can be quite a difference in antler size. So, the avg hunter is now shooting a 2.5 yr old deer instead of a spike or small 2-point. That difference makes it feel to the avg hunter they are shooting a "mature" buck, when in reality they are not.

The reason these APR's keep coming up, is because hunters "want the game department to do something". The game depts and biologists know exactly what APR's do; It's not a mystery. But, ievery 15 yrs a new crop of hunters are demanding it, then that puts pressure on the dept to do something. So they do.........

one final point, and this is not a conspiracy rant......but......APR's put INCREASED pressure on the older adult males in the population......biologist's know this........and what are the primary carriers of CWD??? Older male bucks.........so, what I would say, is be careful for what you wish for, as it is quite possible that game dept biologists see this as a backdoor way to increase the harvest on older age males in the population........just something to think about......personally, I would rather have an open conversation, if harvesting older males is the strategy, and an open conversation about the best way to do that. And, I have no idea if this is even in their thinking. So, its not accusatory. But, just be aware of what you wish for sometimes.......

 

[Silentstalker]

Shooting 2.5 year old bucks is better than what we have now. There is already an incredible amount of pressure on our entire buck herd. Ask any spike or two point on the general season deer hunt.

There is no question that APR does not fix the herd. They increase the age of the bucks shot on the hunts.

We 100% need to fix our deer herd and that starts by figuring out exactly what is happening to the herd overall.

Unfortunately we’re to tied up in whether a muzzleloader hunter should get to have a scope or not to focus on the real problem at hand.

 

[muleydude]

Shooting 2.5 year old bucks is better than what we have now. There is already an incredible amount of pressure on our entire buck herd. Ask any spike or two point on the general season deer hunt.

There is no question that APR does not fix the herd. They increase the age of the bucks shot on the hunts.

We 100% need to fix our deer herd and that starts by figuring out exactly what is happening to the herd overall.

Unfortunately we’re to tied up in whether a muzzleloader hunter should get to have a scope or not to focus on the real problem at hand.

And if shooting a 2.5 yr old buck instead of a 1.5 yr old buck is a worthy goal that we all agree on, then I have no problem about that.

But, that is not what the average person posting on this thread is wanting.....they think we are somehow helping the overall buck to doe ratio for the long run (they can for the very short run increase it though), or helping the overall population somehow, and they think this is going to increase the amount of truly mature bucks (4.5 yr old and older).

And APR's cannot do any of that above, other then adjust the avg buck shot from 1.5 to 2.5 years old.

It also does damage to the age structure of the herd as well because it is "stockpiling" 1.5 yr old bucks and de-populating older age males. The science isn't exactly clear if having yearling bucks do the bulk of the breeding is good or bad. But, certainly Mother Nature didn't set it up this way. I don't think the long run, a strategy of stockpiling yearling males at the expense of the older age classes is smart.

And I totally agree that talking about scopes on muzzleloaders and youth hunts etc is going to do nothing to move the ball forward.

Habitat, predators, winter range. We had all better start focusing on that

 

[Tristate]

Finally........a voice of reason........

APR's never seem to die; I guess for those of us who have been around long enough a new cycle of hunters are now old enough to actually think these will work.

They are a gimmick.......

Just some salient points:

Comparing APR programs in Pennsylvania whitetail herds to Western muler deer herds is not the same thing......not going to go into it, but, with a little research you can understand the differences

APR's DO NOT increase the overall age of the buck population; they actually DECREASE it, and over time the mature buck population at best stays stagnant or overall declines; there is not additional recruitment into the older age classes from APR's; APR's FOCUS the hunting pressure on the older animals because the avg hunter in each State are harvesting 1.5 yr old animals, and now, that hunter who would have shot a 1.5 yr old animal, is now required by law to shoot an older buck. And, that is exactly what happens.

WA State has had APR's for 25 yrs in their mule deer herds; they continue to decline;

Why then are APR's wanted by hunters??? A lot of it is just misunderstanding of the science involved. People think "if we just stop shooting the small bucks, then our populations will be fine". That simply isn't true.

What APR's do though, is increase the avg age of harvested buck from a 1.5 yr old to a 2.5 yr old. In Western mule deer herds that can be quite a difference in antler size. So, the avg hunter is now shooting a 2.5 yr old deer instead of a spike or small 2-point. That difference makes it feel to the avg hunter they are shooting a "mature" buck, when in reality they are not.

The reason these APR's keep coming up, is because hunters "want the game department to do something". The game depts and biologists know exactly what APR's do; It's not a mystery. But, ievery 15 yrs a new crop of hunters are demanding it, then that puts pressure on the dept to do something. So they do.........

one final point, and this is not a conspiracy rant......but......APR's put INCREASED pressure on the older adult males in the population......biologist's know this........and what are the primary carriers of CWD??? Older male bucks.........so, what I would say, is be careful for what you wish for, as it is quite possible that game dept biologists see this as a backdoor way to increase the harvest on older age males in the population........just something to think about......personally, I would rather have an open conversation, if harvesting older males is the strategy, and an open conversation about the best way to do that. And, I have no idea if this is even in their thinking. So, its not accusatory. But, just be aware of what you wish for sometimes.......

If your average age of mortality for bucks is 1.5 you have no mature bucks.

Antler restrictions do work but they are not a silver bullet that fixes everything. They need to be done in coordination with other management practices to improve herd health at the same time.

 

[2lumpy]

Was fish lake 3-point or better or four-point or better?

We asked for 4 point or better but the BLM guys and DWR over road us and we got 3 pt or better. 4 or or better would have worked even better than it did on the central Utah units.

Let me add……Nobody gets on here and squeals like there hair is on fire if a hunter kills a does or a cow elk, during a buck or bull only hunt. It happens way more that we hear about but by hell if a hunter kills a 2 or on 3 or 4 or better unit, folks lose their mind. It’s just an excuse to argue against APR. Nothing more.

You’re always saying, one less buck, who cares, it’s good because to many bucks are a waste of the resource. You say, stop killing does, yet cricks if you see dead doe. You say, people shot first, count points later, some do, and more does die from hunter doing it every year. Where’s the out rage? You say, it puts pressure on the mature bucks. What mature bucks?. There are but a hand full, unit wide……… until after the 4th and 5th year, then there are bunches of then, more than most hunter now days have ever seen on a unit.

You can believe the anti mature buck bureaucrats or you can believe the people that have lived through the APR hunts, such as TriState and others. There’s no need to speculate what happens, it is factual.

Regarding fining offenders, establish a cut and dried fine amount, advertise the hell out of it, issue it to anyone that turns them self in and triple it if the don’t and get caught. They’ll learn to count points quick or estimate width and error on the side of too narrow, really really fast.

If the bureaucrats hate it again this time, they will ignore the fines and advertise the waste in every media source in the State. They won’t lie, they just do things like make you think has been terrible. For example. The bureaucracy had 4 reported 2 points killed on opening weekend of the APR hunt. The year before they had 1 call in, on a deer shot and left. The Salt Lake Tribune published an article, submitted by the bureaucrats, in the Sunday Paper, head line. Most Wasteful Deer Hunt In Utah History. 400% increase in deer shot and left to rot on APR hunts. I called the woman who wrote he article, a Ms Green from the Springville office. I yelled at her, (I shouldn’t have but I did) she cried, and then told me she wrote it so it said, we had one call last year, and 4 calls this year, when I sent it up to the Head Office in Salt Lake, the bosses changed it to say an 400% increase in illegal kill and wonton waste.

You tell me if that’s not propaganda. It’s the absolute truth but it completely alters the mind of the reader, makes uninformed readers believe there were hundreds of deer shot an left to rot. Not true, not true in anyway.

And you wonder why I’m synical. There has been far too much of this nonsense gone on……. let’s hope this current round of bureaucrats has more integrity and is sincerely trying to learn what can be done to help these struggling mule deer herds.

 

[muleydude]

If your average age of mortality for bucks is 1.5 you have no mature bucks.

Antler restrictions do work but they are not a silver bullet that fixes everything. They need to be done in coordination with other management practices to improve herd health at the same time.

well are down to word "gotcha"??

Definition of Average:

1. A number expressing the central or typical value in a set of data......

Let me re-phrase.........The "typical value" of the age of harvested bucks is 1.5 yr old in most, if not all Western, general draw units.

So, if APR's work, even if in some minimal fashion, can you point me to a peer reviewed study that shows they work over the long run? I personally haven't found one.

From your previous postings, you seem to be favoring them based on your own personal anecdotal hunting experiences in units you hunt in that have had them. But, are you considering other variables??

No Western state, outside of WA State, has APR's in all their units. One of the primary ways targeted APR's can actually work is..........they displace hunter participation out of the unit that has APR's to neighboring units that do not have APR's. This is a very common outcome of them. Does this help our deer herds overall?? No; it just pushed hunter harvest and hunter participation into neighboring units which has its own unintended consequences.

APR's can work, in the very very short run, because they immediately protect younger age bucks and displace hunter participation, but there is not long term evidence they work, and they can do real, actual damage to the herd. The science says this from all Western states.

So, we can't really do mule deer management based on peoples anecdotal evidence. In the long run, it has to based on science. That is how you can get game dept to move.

Some of the best things going on right now is that there are several studies being done in multiple States about the level of predation, and it validates all of our "anecdotal" evidence we all have as hunters from what we are seeing in the field. When armed with that data, you can begin to try and make change.

But, in APR's there just simply is no scientific evidence that in the long run it does any good, and, there is evidence that it can in fact do harm.

The problem with all this focus on APR's is we waste time and resources on failed policies, which only puts real change even further behind.

 

[Tristate]

You keep saying "work".

What do you mean "work". If you don't want to talk about average age of mortality in bucks that's fine. But that means you aren't talking about antler restrictions because that is the number one thing they alter. Now if you want to say that isn't the case you are living in lala land and no one needs a study for that.

The primary goal of antler restrictions is to change the average age of buck mortality, AND THEY %100 DO THAT.

Now if you are arguing that they don't work because we aren't all killing 200 inch deer and the fawn survival isn't above %90, that's fine. But just throwing subjective terms like "work" around very specific things is nothing more than mud in the water.

 

[Elkrunning-Scared]

I like what was brought up in another post. Someone said why don’t we just give every resident a deer tag too start. If you harvest you get put on a waiting period (I think 4 years is average on draw for GS) I think this would work better then APR.

Yes you will have a lot of people shooting their deer the first season but after that it will rebound and also be less and less hunters come the 4th year and I think this will be more productive. What I mean people will be more selective on what they shoot.

This will spread everyone out during hunting season
Just a thought.

 

[MrShane]

I like what was brought up in another post. Someone said why don’t we just give every resident a deer tag too start. If you harvest you get put on a waiting period (I think 4 years is average on draw for GS) I think this would work better then APR.

Yes you will have a lot of people shooting their deer the first season but after that it will rebound and also be less and less hunters come the 4th year and I think this will be more productive. What I mean people will be more selective on what they shoot.

This will spread everyone out during hunting season
Just a thought.

No way.
I want to hunt every year.
Even if it means using inferior weapons to todays standards.
Not every four.

 

[Elkrunning-Scared]

No way.
I want to hunt every year.
Even if it means using inferior weapons to todays standards.
Not every four.

You must hunt a unit that allows you to get a tag every year then.
You will get a tag every year if you want. Unless you fill it, then you are on a waiting period.
People will be more selective. I know for a fact I would be. Heck we could do every 3 years.

But I agree with you.
I just don’t think APR will get managed correctly.

 

[muleydude]

You keep saying "work".

What do you mean "work". If you don't want to talk about average age of mortality in bucks that's fine. But that means you aren't talking about antler restrictions because that is the number one thing they alter. Now if you want to say that isn't the case you are living in lala land and no one needs a study for that.

The primary goal of antler restrictions is to change the average age of buck mortality, AND THEY %100 DO THAT.

Now if you are arguing that they don't work because we aren't all killing 200 inch deer and the fawn survival isn't above %90, that's fine. But just throwing subjective terms like "work" around very specific things is nothing more than mud in the water.

more word gotcha........

Let me be more clear.....

By "work" I mean that it will actually do something positive to the deer herd that outweighs the negative. Simple definition.

Facts supported by mountains of research on APR's:

1. They protect 1.5 yr old deer resulting in a stockpile of this age group.

2. Older age classes (4.5 yr and up) are slowly de-populated.
3. No additional recruitment into the older age classes is observed.
4. No observable effects on fawn produciton or fawn recruitment
5. Results in the bulk of the harvest shifting from 1.5 yr old animals to 2.5 yr old animals

Those are facts supported by all kinds of research. By "work" I mean is it worth it to degrade the age structure of the herd, stockplie juvenile bucks, create hunter displacement from one unit to another unit, illegal harvest of under-age bucks and while you might disagree that there are no genetic implications, that simply is not how Mother Nature works. If you implement APR's for long periods of time trust me, there will be those effects over time.

All that so the average (Typical Value) hunter can shoot a 2.5 yr old deer instead of a 1.5 yr old deer????

Your quote:

"We have gone from an average age of mortality of 18 months to 3.5 years. We kill mature deer often. The oldest one aged at 8."

You are outright in your post saying the unit you hunt has moved up two age classes to 3.5 yr old bucks as the "average", or put another way "Typical Value" (theres that word average again.....) of harvest.

And you are saying that you "kill mature deer often. The oldest one aged at 8" and that implies that APR's are helping to achieve this.

So my ask would be, post that data from your unit that backs this up......the biologist for that unit certainly would have that data.

Bring hard data....find this thread a research paper that backs up what you are saying about APR's and post it.

 

[Tristate]

more word gotcha........

Let me be more clear.....

By "work" I mean that it will actually do something positive to the deer herd that outweighs the negative. Simple definition.

Facts supported by mountains of research on APR's:

1. They protect 1.5 yr old deer resulting in a stockpile of this age group.

2. Older age classes (4.5 yr and up) are slowly de-populated.
3. No additional recruitment into the older age classes is observed.
4. No observable effects on fawn produciton or fawn recruitment
5. Results in the bulk of the harvest shifting from 1.5 yr old animals to 2.5 yr old animals

Those are facts supported by all kinds of research. By "work" I mean is it worth it to degrade the age structure of the herd, stockplie juvenile bucks, create hunter displacement from one unit to another unit, illegal harvest of under-age bucks and while you might disagree that there are no genetic implications, that simply is not how Mother Nature works. If you implement APR's for long periods of time trust me, there will be those effects over time.

All that so the average (Typical Value) hunter can shoot a 2.5 yr old deer instead of a 1.5 yr old deer????

Your quote:

"We have gone from an average age of mortality of 18 months to 3.5 years. We kill mature deer often. The oldest one aged at 8."

You are outright in your post saying the unit you hunt has moved up two age classes to 3.5 yr old bucks as the "average", or put another way "Typical Value" (theres that word average again.....) of harvest.

And you are saying that you "kill mature deer often. The oldest one aged at 8" and that implies that APR's are helping to achieve this.

So my ask would be, post that data from your unit that backs this up......the biologist for that unit certainly would have that data.

Bring hard data....find this thread a research paper that backs up what you are saying about APR's and post it.

You aren't making any sense. You can't say what "work" is.

Your definition is "anything positive". Are you kidding??????

Set a goal. Actually start speaking in specifics.

There are plenty of studies showing antler restrictions increase average age of mortality in bucks. IF THAT'S YOUR GOAL, IT "WORKED"

Do you know what the average age of buck mortality is in the units in question?

Do you know what number they are trying to achieve with the restrictions?

 

[BeDawg]

let’s keep it 4 points for 2 years then on the 3rd year open it back up to any legal buck for 1 year. Then back to 4 points for 1 more year after that we see where we’re at. I would guess that the count could be 70% young bucks 30% older bucks. We still want to keep the buck/doe ratio going . It takes about 2 years for young bucks to get in the 4 point range then we wipe them all out. I think by rotating we have a better chance at having a good overall population age group.

This ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[muleydude]

You aren't making any sense. You can't say what "work" is.

Your definition is "anything positive". Are you kidding??????

Set a goal. Actually start speaking in specifics.

There are plenty of studies showing antler restrictions increase average age of mortality in bucks. IF THAT'S YOUR GOAL, IT "WORKED"

Do you know what the average age of buck mortality is in the units in question?

Do you know what number they are trying to achieve with the restrictions?

My position is simple.....the long term negatives of APR's outweigh the positives of shooting 2.5 yr old deer vs 1.5 yr old deer.

Its that simple......and all the science backs that up. From all States. The data is posted above; simple google searches can get you there.

EVERYBODY acknowledges that the harvest is shifted up 1 yr; NOBODY is denying that; the problem is the collateral damage that that rule change causes to get that one additional harvest.

IMO its not worth it; simple position; and all the research comes to the same conclusion.

You indicated in your unit it shifted up 2 years and heavily implied that you are shooting more mature deer even beyond that because of it.

Just post your data to back that up; is that so hard?

 

[Tristate]

My position is simple.....the long term negatives of APR's outweigh the positives of shooting 2.5 yr old deer vs 1.5 yr old deer.

Its that simple......and all the science backs that up. From all States. The data is posted above; simple google searches can get you there.

EVERYBODY acknowledges that the harvest is shifted up 1 yr; NOBODY is denying that; the problem is the collateral damage that that rule change causes to get that one additional harvest.

IMO its not worth it; simple position; and all the research comes to the same conclusion.

You indicated in your unit it shifted up 2 years and heavily implied that you are shooting more mature deer even beyond that because of it.

Just post your data to back that up; is that so hard?

You are dodging questions.

What is the average age of mortality of bucks on the units?

What is the target age of mortality withe the restrictions?

You keep talking about 1.5. Then you talk about the mature bucks get wiped out. WHAT MATURE BUCKS?

 

[antlerradar]

Comparing APR in Texas where the land is almost entirely privet ownership to APR in a western state OTC public land unit is apples and oranges.

 

[antlerradar]

mulelydude, Thanks for everything you posted. I do think that you are overlooking one of the big drawbacks of APR.
Some bucks will never grow a 4 by 4 set of antlers even if they die of old age. Where I live in Montana that portion of the population may be as high as 25%. APR if followed eliminate hunting on that portion of the population. I would bet that if any bucks are making it to 4 or 5 years old that they are bucks that have never grown four points. Mean while two year old buck that have four points have little chance of surviving. These are the bucks that might actually be impressive in a few years.

 

[Tristate]

Comparing APR in Texas where the land is almost entirely privet ownership to APR in a western state OTC public land unit is apples and oranges.

Because deer know who owns the land?????

Land ownership literally has absolutely nothing to do with antler restrictions.

 

[Tristate]

mulelydude, Thanks for everything you posted. I do think that you are overlooking one of the big drawbacks of APR.
Some bucks will never grow a 4 by 4 set of antlers even if they die of old age. Where I live in Montana that portion of the population may be as high as 25%. APR if followed eliminate hunting on that portion of the population. I would bet that if any bucks are making it to 4 or 5 years old that they are bucks that have never grown four points. Mean while two year old buck that have four points have little chance of surviving. These are the bucks that might actually be impressive in a few years.

And this is where other things have to be involved and not just antler restrictions. That doesn't mean the antler restrictions aren't doing what they are designed to do.

Most people here are being way to narrow with their view. At no point will an antler restriction miraculously fix all your different deer issues. That's like trying to fix everything on a car and all you get is one 9/16 wrench.

It is simply one tool that needs to be used in conjunction with other management strategies.

 

[MrShane]

You must hunt a unit that allows you to get a tag every year then.
You will get a tag every year if you want. Unless you fill it, then you are on a waiting period.
People will be more selective. I know for a fact I would be. Heck we could do every 3 years.

But I agree with you.
I just don’t think APR will get managed correctly.

I only hunt every three right now, that is why I am such a strong supporter of knocking tech back down to what we had in the 70’s.
Humans are simply just too deadly right now.
With tech we had in the 70’s we could all hunt every year.
And I agree with you, stop all APR’s unless it is 2 point and less.

 

[muleydude]

mulelydude, Thanks for everything you posted. I do think that you are overlooking one of the big drawbacks of APR.
Some bucks will never grow a 4 by 4 set of antlers even if they die of old age. Where I live in Montana that portion of the population may be as high as 25%. APR if followed eliminate hunting on that portion of the population. I would bet that if any bucks are making it to 4 or 5 years old that they are bucks that have never grown four points. Mean while two year old buck that have four points have little chance of surviving. These are the bucks that might actually be impressive in a few years.

I agree completely; was just trying to keep it simple but, after doing some research here, I see what Tristate's gig is.............apples and oranges comparisons, and Texas, county wide regulations, large swaths of private ground, outiftter apologist.............like I said, I understand his gig now.

Have really enjoyed your posts over the years on many topics; we are a DIY, public land hunting crew, and have hunted all over the West for the last 40 yrs, and spent about 10 yrs in your neck of the woods in the mid 90's until early 2000's; had a great time, and I concur with your conclusions from our time there. It was an enjoyable period though in that area, at least for us. But as we got into the 2000's the word was out so to speak and the hunter pressure climbed dramatically. I'm sure though even then compared to your history in that area the 90's seemed crowded! Spent one year playing hopscotch with the Eastman and Primos suburbans. Then with the increased hunter pressure and after about the 3rd time of having confrontations with Powder River Outfitters trying to kick us off public ground, we decided to move to greener pastures so to speak. But, special area, will always have good memories. From your posts, and the recent droughts, excess doe hunts, massive hunting pressure, it seems your area has really slipped. But once again thank you for all your reasoned and well thought out posts over the years. Its good for this site.

 

[huntindad4]

Here is an excerpt from a paper shared with me by Gary Fralick. I think it is a pretty good source of info from APR results. I have the whole document if anyone knows or cares to look at it, let me know how I can share it.

There is also a table in another paper he sent me that compares age vs outside width:

View attachment 124772

This portion is only regarding APRs historically in multiple states:

USE OF ANTLER POINT REGULATIONS FOR MULE DEER BY STATE
COLORADO - Colorado implemented antler point restrictions for mule deer on a statewide basis for six years, and for a seven year period in a number of Game Management Units (GMU). These seasons resulted in a shift of hunting pressure on all age classes of bucks (primarily yearlings) to bucks ≥2. Colorado documented a marked increase in illegal or accidental harvest of yearling bucks during this period. The number and ratio of mature bucks did not increase during these 6 or 7 year periods.

IDAHO - Idaho implemented ≤2 point seasons (combined with limited quota seasons for bucks with ≥3 points) to reduce hunting pressure on older bucks and improve post-season total buck:doe ratios. Over the long term, these ≤2 point APR seasons did not improve total buck:doe post-season ratios. However, there were temporary (2-4 years) improvements in post-season adult buck ratios following initiation of this type of APR. Following several consecutive years of increased general pressure solely on yearling males, adult buck ratios returned to pre-
treatment (or worse) levels in the face of this regulation. This reduction of adult bucks following several years of increased pressure on yearlings was the result of dramatically reduced
recruitment of yearlings into the adult buck classes.
Idaho also used a ≥4 point season in big game management unit 73 in the early 2000s in an effort to reduce hunter participation and crowding in this area. The regulation was strongly backed by the public and resulted in increased total buck:doe ratios. However, following several years of APR use, the public became concerned about increasing number of large adult males with 3 point antlers. Complaints about hunter crowding remained during APR use and the area was eventually converted to an “unlimited controlled hunt structure” (hunters selecting to hunt in this area are precluded from hunting in other “general” areas, but “permits” were not limited) in an effort to limit hunter participation.

UTAH - Utah used both ≥3 and ≥4 point over a number of years in numerous GMUs. The Utah Division of Wildlife abandoned mule deer APRs after five years due to significant (>35%) illegal harvest of yearling males, reduced total harvest, reduced hunter participation, shifting hunter distribution, and a reduction in harvestable mature bucks.

MONTANA – Montana has used APR seasons that protect both adult males (≤2 points only legal for a portion of the general season) and seasons that protect yearlings. In the former seasons, results were similar to those in Idaho; a temporary increase in mature bucks followed by a return to pre-APR ratios. Conversely, attempts to increase the number of mature bucks and total buck:doe ratios using ≥4 point seasons in Montana reduced total buck harvest by 28%, and increased illegal harvest of bucks with ≤3 points by nearly 40%. However, harvest of legal bucks having ≥4 points increased when compared to areas without APR, but personnel believed this was unsustainable. Montana personnel suggested this season structure could be detrimental to total buck ratios in areas with limited mule deer security habitats (e.g. areas with extensive road networks).

WASHINGTON - Washington used APRs in select units for mule deer, black-tailed deer, and/or white-tailed deer (WDFW 2010). During APR use, which they continue to employ in select units, Washington experienced a smaller total harvest of mule deer bucks, a switch in some harvest from mule deer to white-tailed deer, and no increase in the number of mature mule
deer bucks. They did experience an increase in total buck:doe ratios as the result of lower total mule deer buck harvest. However, fawn recruitment in these areas also increased at this same time due to improved precipitation and habitat, complicating the analysis. WDFW concludes in their analyses that APRs work to increase buck “escapement” from harvest when combined with short season length.

OREGON – Oregon used an APR regulation for mule deer for a number of consecutive years in the popular Steens Mountain herd, and other wildlife management units. ODFW abandoned this regulation when both the number of older bucks and total buck:doe ratios decreased following 12 consecutive years of APR (≥4 point). They documented significant illegal harvest of bucks ≤3 points and a reduction of 30% of bucks ≥4 points observed following the hunting season. Additionally, legal harvest declined by over 50%. Since APRs did not achieve public desires for more and larger bucks, Oregon has since moved to limited quota to
meet post-season buck ratio management objectives in these areas (ODFW 2003).

It's mentioned in almost all states that there was an increase of various percentages in illegal harvest of bucks with less than the new restricted size?!?

Amazing right? Terrible....

Wait...not too surprising that suddenly there is an increase of illegally shot forked horn in a 3 point or better unit considering forked horns were legal to shoot the year before..

So let's look at a hypothetical small unit with 350 tags. Fish and game counts the total by adding together the illegal forkie shot without a tag and the one shot at night and the one on private when forkies were legal for a total of 3 on a unit increased by 30% the year it was illegal to shoot forked horns for an increase of... one...

Nevermind how many legal forkies were killed the year they were legal. Say it was 50 for the same small unit. Sounds like quite a few were spared.

Stats can reveal whatever you want them to.

 

[huntindad4]

Finally........a voice of reason........

APR's never seem to die; I guess for those of us who have been around long enough a new cycle of hunters are now old enough to actually think these will work.

They are a gimmick.......

Just some salient points:

Comparing APR programs in Pennsylvania whitetail herds to Western muler deer herds is not the same thing......not going to go into it, but, with a little research you can understand the differences

APR's DO NOT increase the overall age of the buck population; they actually DECREASE it, and over time the mature buck population at best stays stagnant or overall declines; there is not additional recruitment into the older age classes from APR's; APR's FOCUS the hunting pressure on the older animals because the avg hunter in each State are harvesting 1.5 yr old animals, and now, that hunter who would have shot a 1.5 yr old animal, is now required by law to shoot an older buck. And, that is exactly what happens.

WA State has had APR's for 25 yrs in their mule deer herds; they continue to decline;

Why then are APR's wanted by hunters??? A lot of it is just misunderstanding of the science involved. People think "if we just stop shooting the small bucks, then our populations will be fine". That simply isn't true.

What APR's do though, is increase the avg age of harvested buck from a 1.5 yr old to a 2.5 yr old. In Western mule deer herds that can be quite a difference in antler size. So, the avg hunter is now shooting a 2.5 yr old deer instead of a spike or small 2-point. That difference makes it feel to the avg hunter they are shooting a "mature" buck, when in reality they are not.

The reason these APR's keep coming up, is because hunters "want the game department to do something". The game depts and biologists know exactly what APR's do; It's not a mystery. But, ievery 15 yrs a new crop of hunters are demanding it, then that puts pressure on the dept to do something. So they do.........

one final point, and this is not a conspiracy rant......but......APR's put INCREASED pressure on the older adult males in the population......biologist's know this........and what are the primary carriers of CWD??? Older male bucks.........so, what I would say, is be careful for what you wish for, as it is quite possible that game dept biologists see this as a backdoor way to increase the harvest on older age males in the population........just something to think about......personally, I would rather have an open conversation, if harvesting older males is the strategy, and an open conversation about the best way to do that. And, I have no idea if this is even in their thinking. So, its not accusatory. But, just be aware of what you wish for sometimes.......

Wait...so if yiu stop shooting young deer the "average age" of the deer you kill goes up?? No chit?

 

[huntindad4]

well are down to word "gotcha"??

Definition of Average:

1. A number expressing the central or typical value in a set of data......

Let me re-phrase.........The "typical value" of the age of harvested bucks is 1.5 yr old in most, if not all Western, general draw units.

So, if APR's work, even if in some minimal fashion, can you point me to a peer reviewed study that shows they work over the long run? I personally haven't found one.

From your previous postings, you seem to be favoring them based on your own personal anecdotal hunting experiences in units you hunt in that have had them. But, are you considering other variables??

No Western state, outside of WA State, has APR's in all their units. One of the primary ways targeted APR's can actually work is..........they displace hunter participation out of the unit that has APR's to neighboring units that do not have APR's. This is a very common outcome of them. Does this help our deer herds overall?? No; it just pushed hunter harvest and hunter participation into neighboring units which has its own unintended consequences.

APR's can work, in the very very short run, because they immediately protect younger age bucks and displace hunter participation, but there is not long term evidence they work, and they can do real, actual damage to the herd. The science says this from all Western states.

So, we can't really do mule deer management based on peoples anecdotal evidence. In the long run, it has to based on science. That is how you can get game dept to move.

Some of the best things going on right now is that there are several studies being done in multiple States about the level of predation, and it validates all of our "anecdotal" evidence we all have as hunters from what we are seeing in the field. When armed with that data, you can begin to try and make change.

But, in APR's there just simply is no scientific evidence that in the long run it does any good, and, there is evidence that it can in fact do harm.

The problem with all this focus on APR's is we waste time and resources on failed policies, which only puts real change even further behind.

Show me ONE draw unit in the ENTIRE west where the average age of harvested deer is 1.5 years old.

 

[Tristate]

I agree completely; was just trying to keep it simple but, after doing some research here, I see what Tristate's gig is.............apples and oranges comparisons, and Texas, county wide regulations, large swaths of private ground, outiftter apologist.............like I said, I understand his gig now.

Have really enjoyed your posts over the years on many topics; we are a DIY, public land hunting crew, and have hunted all over the West for the last 40 yrs, and spent about 10 yrs in your neck of the woods in the mid 90's until early 2000's; had a great time, and I concur with your conclusions from our time there. It was an enjoyable period though in that area, at least for us. But as we got into the 2000's the word was out so to speak and the hunter pressure climbed dramatically. I'm sure though even then compared to your history in that area the 90's seemed crowded! Spent one year playing hopscotch with the Eastman and Primos suburbans. Then with the increased hunter pressure and after about the 3rd time of having confrontations with Powder River Outfitters trying to kick us off public ground, we decided to move to greener pastures so to speak. But, special area, will always have good memories. From your posts, and the recent droughts, excess doe hunts, massive hunting pressure, it seems your area has really slipped. But once again thank you for all your reasoned and well thought out posts over the years. Its good for this site.

You forget something.

I'm an actual wildlife biologist that specializes in deer management.

 

[huntindad4]

Most 1.5 year old bucks are still with mom and small groups of does and other 1.5 year olds during typical archery and most rifle seasons in the west and are easy to find and kill.

Most 2.5 year Olds are with bachelor groups of othe older bucks and are typically much harder to find and kill.

To say harvest rates don't drop with antler restrictions is ridiculous. Therefore to say population won't increase is also ridiculous.

How long does that continue to grow population is debatable.

When you "stockpile" 1.5 year old bucks, you actually "stockpile 2.5 year old bucks for the following season to be legally harvested (theoretically since not all 2.5 year Olds will grow legal antlers) by the same hunters who couldn't find a more mature deer before and will likely struggle to do so now. Thus harvest will go down. Eventually the population of older bucks of all ages increases and the harvest rate goes back up slowly. Hopefully in the meantime you have done other things to increase overall population such as tag, season and weapon restrictions, habitat improvements and predator control.

However, to trust fish and game departments to do those things in addition to the antler restrictions is foolish. Just as foolish as it is to trust their "studies and stats" on antler restrictions and why they don't work.

Most hunters are opportunity driven and they will hate antler restrictions because they aren't typically the best hunters. They will scream and yell and quit buying tags. Something fish and game agencies hate since they like money.

 

[notdonhunting]

You forget something.

I'm an actual wildlife biologist that specializes in deer management.

"Really" who would of thunk that!
I would suspect most wildlife biologists (specializing in deer) would know there is drastic difference between managing deer (mostly whitetail) in Texas mostly private and favorable winter conditions and Utah (all Muley deer) mostly public and winter conditions extremely harsh.
Yes, I know deer don't know who owns what land.
Tell that to the deer that congregate on private property after the hunt begins.

 

[Tristate]

"Really" who would of thunk that!
I would suspect most wildlife biologists (specializing in deer) would know there is drastic difference between managing deer (mostly whitetail) in Texas mostly private and favorable winter conditions and Utah (all Muley deer) mostly public and winter conditions extremely harsh.
Yes, I know deer don't know who owns what land.
Tell that to the deer that congregate on private property after the hunt begins.

Deer don't know who owns the land. Who owns the land has nothing, ZERO, to do with antler restrictions.

Winter has absolutely nothing to do with antler restrictions.

There are differences in the actual antler restrictions. They can vary widely. They can fail to accomplish their goal if they aren't managed properly. If managed properly they achieve their goal no matter where they are implemented.

What I think is funny is people on here thinking someone from Texas doesn't understand winter as a limiting factor in deer management. Do you actually believe when someone is in college they only teach them to manage deer in the state the college is located in?????

 

[muleydude]

You forget something.

I'm an actual wildlife biologist that specializes in deer management.

Perfect……then please post some actual data that indicates APR’s do anything more then just move the average (Typical Value) harvest up 1 yr in Western States mule deer herds??

Post data from your County that indicates your herd Typical Value (average) buck harvested is now 3.5 yrs old.

You’re a wildlife biologist…..ok….great. Wildlife biologists are driven by data and research. I know several of them. And they are fully capable of providing me research that backs up their conclusions

But all we hear on this site from you is your opinion. So 8000 posts on MM, and you telling us all your a “wildlife biologist” means you get a pass to actually backing up your mouth???

How about some data from your county…..you’re a wildlife biologist that specializes in deer management……surely you can post some data……

 

[antlerradar]

Because deer know who owns the land?????

Land ownership literally has absolutely nothing to do with antler restrictions.

Haven't spent much time hunting OTC public land units have you.

 

[Tristate]

Experimental antler restrictions paying early dividends for Texas mule deer hunters

An ongoing experiment aims to make mule deer hunting bigger and better. Just the way...

www.houstonchronicle.com

Here you go. Most biologists don't worry about data in many cases. They just like keeping it handy for stupid people.

 

[elkfromabove]

What I think is funny is people on here thinking someone from Texas doesn't understand winter as a limiting factor in deer management. Do you actually believe when someone is in college they only teach them to manage deer in the state the college is located in?????

What I think is funny is college students thinking their diploma is all they need to do a job well!

I was a high school custodian for 25 years and I can't tell you how many local SUU (Southern Utah University) students majoring in education would come to the high school to get their hands-on experience, only to find out that they couldn't or didn't want to actually deal with the students, the parents, the staff, the school rules, the homework assignments, the prep needed for the next day's lessons, etc. And as a result, many of them never even used their education.

So, if you're such a good wildlife biologist specializing in deer management, why aren't you making a living doing that?

Of course, the deer don't know who owns the land, but it doesn't take long for them to know where the people/hunters are or aren't depending on who owns the land! They know WHERE they are safe without having to know WHY they are safe!

 

[Tristate]

What I think is funny is college students thinking their diploma is all they need to do a job well!

I was a high school custodian for 25 years and I can't tell you how many local SUU (Southern Utah University) students majoring in education would come to the high school to get their hands-on experience, only to find out that they couldn't or didn't want to actually deal with the students, the parents, the staff, the school rules, the homework assignments, the prep needed for the next day's lessons, etc. And as a result, many of them never even used their education.

So, if you're such a good wildlife biologist specializing in deer management, why aren't you making a living doing that?

Of course, the deer don't know who owns the land, but it doesn't take long for them to know where the people/hunters are or aren't depending on who owns the land! They know WHERE they are safe without having to know WHY they are safe!

Well I have 26 years experience to go with the diploma.

 

[muleydude]

Experimental antler restrictions paying early dividends for Texas mule deer hunters

An ongoing experiment aims to make mule deer hunting bigger and better. Just the way...

www.houstonchronicle.com

Here you go. Most biologists don't worry about data in many cases. They just like keeping it handy for stupid

Outside of the idiocy of that statement…….trust me most credible wildlife biologists “worry” about the data……..we are nonetheless making progress here…….

So only took 14 posts…..but you have finally provided some decent data to show that Texas has seen that as the result. So that is progress.

So now since we’re all warmed up and good with providing data….let’s move to the second question I posed.

Show us the data that in Western states mule deer herds, mostly dominated by large swaths of public ground and OTC general hunts, we’re APR’s are doing anything in the long run more then moving the age of harvest up 1 yr??

Texas is a fringe Mule deer state dominated by large tracts of private ground, less Hunter opportunity than in Weatern states, less predation, winter kill etc etc.

The mule deer herds in the fringe states like Texas,Kansas etc are actually doing relatively well.

So provide some data for Wyoming, Montana, Utah, etc. these are the States that the herds are suffering. That’s what this thread is about. Not mule deer herds in Texas and Kansas

 

[2lumpy]

Well I have 26 years experience to go with the diploma.

“A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.” (simon/garfunkel)

We all are guilty of confirmation bias. Personally, I love mine…….. so does everybody else…… love their’s

The old timers called these conversations, by all levels of education and experience……… pissing in the wind.

Tri…….. how long have we wasted time in these mule deer discussions? I dare say, not a single bias has been changed.

Don’t ask anyone why APR (spike only hunts) grew so many mature bull elk they started dying from old age, not my words, but theirs. They only answer to that question is, elk are different! Yea, right!

 

[notdonhunting]

Don’t ask anyone why APR (spike only hunts) grew so many mature bull elk they started dying from old age, not my words, but theirs. They only answer to that question is, elk are different! Yea, right!

The difference being it is spike only.
Let's do spike only or even two point or less and we would have bucks dying of old age.

 

[Tristate]

“A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.” (simon/garfunkel)

We all are guilty of confirmation bias. Personally, I love mine…….. so does everybody else…… love their’s

The old timers called these conversations, by all levels of education and experience……… pissing in the wind.

Tri…….. how long have we wasted time in these mule deer discussions? I dare say, not a single bias has been changed.

Don’t ask anyone why APR (spike only hunts) grew so many mature bull elk they started dying from old age, not my words, but theirs. They only answer to that question is, elk are different! Yea, right!

I'm the worst kind of fool 2Lumpy.

I still believe one day people will realize I want to help the future of wildlife for our descendants. Not just for us.

 

[Tristate]

Outside of the idiocy of that statement…….trust me most credible wildlife biologists “worry” about the data……..we are nonetheless making progress here…….

So only took 14 posts…..but you have finally provided some decent data to show that Texas has seen that as the result. So that is progress.

So now since we’re all warmed up and good with providing data….let’s move to the second question I posed.

Show us the data that in Western states mule deer herds, mostly dominated by large swaths of public ground and OTC general hunts, we’re APR’s are doing anything in the long run more then moving the age of harvest up 1 yr??

Texas is a fringe Mule deer state dominated by large tracts of private ground, less Hunter opportunity than in Weatern states, less predation, winter kill etc etc.

The mule deer herds in the fringe states like Texas,Kansas etc are actually doing relatively well.

So provide some data for Wyoming, Montana, Utah, etc. these are the States that the herds are suffering. That’s what this thread is about. Not mule deer herds in Texas and Kansas

You haven't answered my questions yet. Now you are splitting hairs because you finally got the smack you begged for.

Answer my questions.

 

[2lumpy]

I'm the worst kind of fool 2Lumpy.

I still believe one day people will realize I want to help the future of wildlife for our descendants. Not just for us.

Me too but if 45 years has taught me anything, its that it doesn’t work. They won’t hear what you’re saying.

I called this year Tri, it’s all about the future now. Never hunted a day in 2023. Had a dedicated tag in Utah and a deer tag in Colorado, third season, 16 points. Starts November 11. Won’t hunt that tag either. I almost forgot, I went to Saskatchewan with my son and grandson this year too, I fished while they hunted. I’m fini. It’s all about the grandkids now, and has been for the last 25 years.

 

[huntindad4]

Me too but if 45 years has taught me anything, its that it doesn’t work. They won’t hear what you’re saying.

I called this year Tri, it’s all about the future now. Never hunted a day in 2023. Had a dedicated tag in Utah and a deer tag in Colorado, third season, 16 points. Starts November 11. Won’t hunt that tag either. I’m fini. It’s all about the grandkids now, and has been for the last 25 years.

Is there any way you can donate that third season CO deer tag 2lumpy?

I know a guy..

 

[2lumpy]

Is there any way you can donate that third season CO deer tag 2lumpy?

I know a guy..

Sure…….. use at your own risk. ?

 

[huntindad4]

Sure…….. use at your own risk. ?

Hey, I will try almost anything once...

 

[huntindad4]

Hey, I will try almost anything once...

Not that, Homer....

 

[2lumpy]

Not that, Homer....

Same out come, you get pinched either way……. Just saying.

 

[Simpleton]

It's mentioned in almost all states that there was an increase of various percentages in illegal harvest of bucks with less than the new restricted size?!?

Amazing right? Terrible....

Wait...not too surprising that suddenly there is an increase of illegally shot forked horn in a 3 point or better unit considering forked horns were legal to shoot the year before..

So let's look at a hypothetical small unit with 350 tags. Fish and game counts the total by adding together the illegal forkie shot without a tag and the one shot at night and the one on private when forkies were legal for a total of 3 on a unit increased by 30% the year it was illegal to shoot forked horns for an increase of... one...

Nevermind how many legal forkies were killed the year they were legal. Say it was 50 for the same small unit. Sounds like quite a few were spared.

Stats can reveal whatever you want them to.

If you read my post, I didn't tell anyone that statistics should "reveal" anything to them. This thread is about experience with APRs. This is simply information from a published paper from one of the most recognized biologists in the west when it comes to mule deer. To be fair, you made up a scenario that fits your view and used that as evidence that stats can reveal whatever someone wants. None of the states ran the APR for only a single season. So it can't be attributed to a single year as in your post or hypothetical scenario.

I agree that statistics can be misleading, but they can also help see trends. The trend I see is that, overall, the outcomes from these APR trials has not been positive. Some could interpret it differently. I've stayed away, from offering an opinion on the APRs as it would be just that. I am not an expert and don't claim to be. There are many people with much more experience than myself on the topic. That is why I posted information from some of those experts and the data they've collected over decades in multiple areas and states. Anyone who takes the time to read it is free to form their own opinion with it, or throw it out. I also agree with Tristate that APRs are simply one tool. As he has stated, I don't believe that any wildlife professionals, biologists, etc. believe APRs are meant to be miraculous fix to the whole herd.

 

[2lumpy]

If you read my post, I'm didn't tell anyone that statistics should "reveal" anything to them. This thread is about experience with APRs. This is simply information from a published paper from one of the most recognized biologists in the west when it comes to mule deer. To be fair, you made up a scenario that fits your view and used that as evidence that stats can reveal whatever someone wants. None of the states ran the APR for only a single season. So it can't be attributed to a single year as in your post or hypothetical scenario.

I agree that statistics can be misleading, but they can also help see trends. The trend I see is that, overall, the outcomes from these APR trials has not been positive. Some could interpret it differently. I've stayed away, from offering an opinion on the APRs as it would be just that. I am not an expert and don't claim to be. There are many people with much more experience than myself on the topic. That is why I posted information from some of those experts and the data they've collected over decades in multiple areas and states. Anyone who takes the time to read it is free to form their own opinion with it, or throw it out. I also agree with Tristate that APRs are simply one tool. As he has stated, I don't believe that any wildlife professionals, biologists, etc. believe APRs are meant to be miraculous fix to the whole herd.

Good……. I’ve never spoken to anyone that did either. Thank you for clearing that up.

Should be said about any effort, in singularity.

 

[antlerradar]

This is a APR I could get behind.
Montana's resident deer license is far to cheep. Increase the price of the general deer tag to at least 50 dollars. If that is too much and you need to feed the family you can still by a license good for a three point or less at the old price. If you are hunting with the three point or less license and make a mistake on a four point or just cannot control yourself when you see a big one there should be a five day grace period where you can turn yourself in pay 250 dollars and keep your buck. Caught out side of the grace period you pay 2500 dollars and don't get to keep the deer.

 

[Elkrunning-Scared]

I have been thinking. So APR have been tried and they claim it doesn’t work.
But we do have a tool to keep it balanced I think.
Let’s run the APR and let the youth run without APR rules. This is something that hasn’t been done.

 

[2lumpy]

I have been thinking. So APR have been tried and they claim it doesn’t work.
But we do have a tool to keep it balanced I think.
Let’s run the APR and let the youth run without APR rules. This is something that hasn’t been done.

Great idea, if we were experimenting with ways to recruit and bring more youth into the life style.

Problem seems to be, there won’t be a hunting life style, if we don’t figure out how to grow and maintain abundant surplus bearing mule deer herds.

Get these deer back to growing surplus populations, on a regular bases and you can try all kinds of youth recruiting ideas.

Sound fair?

 

[muleydude]

You haven't answered my questions yet. Now you are splitting hairs because you finally got the smack you begged for.

Answer my questions.

Hmmm. splitting hairs?? I asked for data for two things…..your particular county……which you provided…..after 14 posts back and forth……and I guess my bad…../didn’t realize you were from a county in Texas…..sorry….but Mule deer herds in Texas isn’t really what this thread is about…..since your a wildlife biologist with 26 yrs of experience who doesn’t believe data is important and confirmation bias is the key to all to what ales our mule deer herds, then we’re not really going to agree on much.

I know it pains you to have to actually provide data to back up your mouth……8000 posts on MM and your “wildlife biology degree and 26 yrs of experience” and “Texas mule deer experience ” it’s obvious you think we should all genuflect at your alter of of knowledge….but that isn’t going to fix anything. You’re not a martyr………

Simple ask…..provide us all with some data that in a western state like Utah, Wyoming, Montana that APR’s do anything other then move the yr of harvest up 1 yr.

Sorry, but the data is really clear. As a “wildlife biologist with 26 yrs is experience in deer management” you should be able to discern the data.

I guess it could all be a conspiracy between Wyoming, Montana, Idaho and Utah game departments to conspire to hold down the secret truth about APR’s. We can all chase ghosts or we can actually move onto real solutions.

But at the end of the day….if you want to increase mule deer herd in the West (not fringe mule deer states) then you have to focus on habitat, predators, winter habitat, etc and get to conditions that enhance fawn production and recruitment

APR’s are not a serious management tool that are going to fix anything. There not even a small improvement because the net harm they do outweighs the net positive.

I live in a unit that has had 27yrs of APR’s. It hasn’t done anything. I suspect very few on this site have had that long of an APR experience. I’ve hunted units all over the West that have had APR’s. The experience is the same with all of them But even with all that personal experience I realize and understand that in spite of my personal experience I need to be able to back that observation up with data. So that is my experience….AND….ALL the data backs it up that in traditional Western states dominated by large tracts of public land and general OTC hunts, the harm they do over the longer run is not worth the “gain” of moving the age of harvest up 1 yr.

Like I said, this thread is not about fringe mule
Deer states like Texas. This thread is about how to make mule deer herds in SE Montana , central Wyoming and Idaho better.

 

[Tristate]

Hmmm. splitting hairs?? I asked for data for two things…..your particular county……which you provided…..after 14 posts back and forth……and I guess my bad…../didn’t realize you were from a county in Texas…..sorry….but Mule deer herds in Texas isn’t really what this thread is about…..since your a wildlife biologist with 26 yrs of experience who doesn’t believe data is important and confirmation bias is the key to all to what ales our mule deer herds, then we’re not really going to agree on much.

I know it pains you to have to actually provide data to back up your mouth……8000 posts on MM and your “wildlife biology degree and 26 yrs of experience” and “Texas mule deer experience ” it’s obvious you think we should all genuflect at your alter of of knowledge….but that isn’t going to fix anything. You’re not a martyr………

Simple ask…..provide us all with some data that in a western state like Utah, Wyoming, Montana that APR’s do anything other then move the yr of harvest up 1 yr.

Sorry, but the data is really clear. As a “wildlife biologist with 26 yrs is experience in deer management” you should be able to discern the data.

I guess it could all be a conspiracy between Wyoming, Montana, Idaho and Utah game departments to conspire to hold down the secret truth about APR’s. We can all chase ghosts or we can actually move onto real solutions.

But at the end of the day….if you want to increase mule deer herd in the West (not fringe mule deer states) then you have to focus on habitat, predators, winter habitat, etc and get to conditions that enhance fawn production and recruitment

APR’s are not a serious management tool that are going to fix anything. There not even a small improvement because the net harm they do outweighs the net positive.

I live in a unit that has had 27yrs of APR’s. It hasn’t done anything. I suspect very few on this site have had that long of an APR experience. I’ve hunted units all over the West that have had APR’s. The experience is the same with all of them But even with all that personal experience I realize and understand that in spite of my personal experience I need to be able to back that observation up with data. So that is my experience….AND….ALL the data backs it up that in traditional Western states dominated by large tracts of public land and general OTC hunts, the harm they do over the longer run is not worth the “gain” of moving the age of harvest up 1 yr.

Like I said, this thread is not about fringe mule
Deer states like Texas. This thread is about how to make mule deer herds in SE Montana , central Wyoming and Idaho better.

Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla


You got smacked. You haven't answered a single question I asked. You haven't backed up anything. All you can do is talk about me and claim you have experience.

If you don't like what the 27 years of restrictions have done in your area maybe look at what else is going on there. Or maybe just you are the problem there.

What's amazing is you are to blind to realize the most obvious part of the antler restrictions debate. It's not public vs private, or this state vs that state, ITS THE RULES OF THE RESTRICTION ITSELF. Pull your head out your rear.

 

[huntindad4]

Hmmm. splitting hairs?? I asked for data for two things…..your particular county……which you provided…..after 14 posts back and forth……and I guess my bad…../didn’t realize you were from a county in Texas…..sorry….but Mule deer herds in Texas isn’t really what this thread is about…..since your a wildlife biologist with 26 yrs of experience who doesn’t believe data is important and confirmation bias is the key to all to what ales our mule deer herds, then we’re not really going to agree on much.

I know it pains you to have to actually provide data to back up your mouth……8000 posts on MM and your “wildlife biology degree and 26 yrs of experience” and “Texas mule deer experience ” it’s obvious you think we should all genuflect at your alter of of knowledge….but that isn’t going to fix anything. You’re not a martyr………

Simple ask…..provide us all with some data that in a western state like Utah, Wyoming, Montana that APR’s do anything other then move the yr of harvest up 1 yr.

Sorry, but the data is really clear. As a “wildlife biologist with 26 yrs is experience in deer management” you should be able to discern the data.

I guess it could all be a conspiracy between Wyoming, Montana, Idaho and Utah game departments to conspire to hold down the secret truth about APR’s. We can all chase ghosts or we can actually move onto real solutions.

But at the end of the day….if you want to increase mule deer herd in the West (not fringe mule deer states) then you have to focus on habitat, predators, winter habitat, etc and get to conditions that enhance fawn production and recruitment

APR’s are not a serious management tool that are going to fix anything. There not even a small improvement because the net harm they do outweighs the net positive.

I live in a unit that has had 27yrs of APR’s. It hasn’t done anything. I suspect very few on this site have had that long of an APR experience. I’ve hunted units all over the West that have had APR’s. The experience is the same with all of them But even with all that personal experience I realize and understand that in spite of my personal experience I need to be able to back that observation up with data. So that is my experience….AND….ALL the data backs it up that in traditional Western states dominated by large tracts of public land and general OTC hunts, the harm they do over the longer run is not worth the “gain” of moving the age of harvest up 1 yr.

Like I said, this thread is not about fringe mule
Deer states like Texas. This thread is about how to make mule deer herds in SE Montana , central Wyoming and Idaho better.

The possible gain of moving the age of the average harvested buck does help the herd. It's impossible it wouldn't. Just by the nature of how most young deer are harvested, most are pointed out by the 4 or 5 does that have a low fear of man that makes it easier to find them near a road while the average hunter is cruising around in his pickup or SxS.

A buck that is a year older is very likely hanging around with a buck or two and is much harder to find if those bucks have any smarts gained by.......age.

The net result may be minimal with APR alone but it's gonna take a lot of things melted together to truly improve the herd. If you can't get Joe public hunter on board with small restrictions you won't get him on board with the big stuff and it will continue to get worse.

Small changes like baiting and trail cam restrictions send people into a tizzy. They scream things like "it won't help!" or my favorite...."it offers no advantage" while they cry and piss and moan thar it has been made illegal.

You say this thread is "not about TX mule deer" yet ask for data. Well I offer that the nature of the original thread was not a out data. It was asking for our personal experience and opinion of APRs. That has been given by many and respectfully debated by most.

I would argue that whatever other controls and conditions that are offered to that TX herd, the herd DID benefit from APRs. So it was an important piece of the puzzle. Quit beotching a out the fact that the TX herd has other advantages and start screaming g for western stated to add those to APRs as a list of things to do for the herd.

You ask for data to support the anecdotal reports of success well I ask for data for your specific anecdotal report of 27 year APR that didn't help. My guess is if the data can be gpund there was a period of improvement offered and probably many other things such as the way we have changed the way we hunt in the last 27 years are equally if not more responsible for the failure.