Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
BuckRub said:
And how do APRs reduce the doe population?
antler point restrictions
- Thread starter ChaperallCat
- Start date
And how do APRs reduce the doe population?
Just googled "pros and cons of APR". Some good points but my opinion the cons are worse than the pros. Glad where I live we don't have to worry bout it.
Well let me explain. If I was a hunter and my only concern was to bag a bigger buck then it would be great. But from what I read about helping hunting as a whole for all hunters who it affects then NO I don't see where it shows no positive. It hurts our sport.
Well let me explain. If I was a hunter and my only concern was to bag a bigger buck then it would be great. But from what I read about helping hunting as a whole for all hunters who it affects then NO I don't see where it shows no positive. It hurts our sport.
Last edited:
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
I've read the pros and cons, thoroughly. I try not to have an uninformed opinion.
Most of the cons are either temporary or imaginary. The only folks who are bothered, long term, by APRs are the "If it's brown, it's down!" crowd.
That has nothing to do with doe hunting either. That has to do with hunters who can't stand to let any deer walk by without killing it.
APRs increase the deer population. If you want a better chance to kill a deer, APRs give it to you except for that first year or two, when your odds might be reduced by 20% or so.
After that second year, every hunter has a better chance to kill a deer and any hunter who wants to shoot a big buck has a MUCH better chance. There will be MORE deer so the potential of being forced to let one walk matters less because there are more chances for everybody.
I just don't get the objection.
If you're exclusively a doe hunter, APRs don't have any negative effect on you and probably have a positive effect, as other guys will be after the bigger bucks and won't bother your doe. The general population increases, including both genders.
If you're a trophy hunter, they're good for you.
If you're a "I don't mind letting a little guy walk and I'll sometimes shoot a doe." kind of hunter, they're either positive or have no effect on you.
If you're a "If it's brown, it's down!" hunter, they're bad for you.
1 group out of 4 negative. 3 out of 4 positive or no effect.
Most of the cons are either temporary or imaginary. The only folks who are bothered, long term, by APRs are the "If it's brown, it's down!" crowd.
That has nothing to do with doe hunting either. That has to do with hunters who can't stand to let any deer walk by without killing it.
APRs increase the deer population. If you want a better chance to kill a deer, APRs give it to you except for that first year or two, when your odds might be reduced by 20% or so.
After that second year, every hunter has a better chance to kill a deer and any hunter who wants to shoot a big buck has a MUCH better chance. There will be MORE deer so the potential of being forced to let one walk matters less because there are more chances for everybody.
I just don't get the objection.
If you're exclusively a doe hunter, APRs don't have any negative effect on you and probably have a positive effect, as other guys will be after the bigger bucks and won't bother your doe. The general population increases, including both genders.
If you're a trophy hunter, they're good for you.
If you're a "I don't mind letting a little guy walk and I'll sometimes shoot a doe." kind of hunter, they're either positive or have no effect on you.
If you're a "If it's brown, it's down!" hunter, they're bad for you.
1 group out of 4 negative. 3 out of 4 positive or no effect.
The negative I see is the article said that less and less hunters are hunting because of this and let's face it we as hunters need all the more. If we aren't getting them on our side the antis are.
Here in Texas, no we don't have to worry with it and to you Keg lets just say I shoot 6-8 every year.
Here in Texas, no we don't have to worry with it and to you Keg lets just say I shoot 6-8 every year.
For counties with Special Antler Restrictions, a legal buck deer has:
at least one unbranched antler, or
an inside spread of 13 inches or greater. The inside spread requirement does not apply to any buck that has an unbranched antler.
Not more than one buck with an inside spread of 13 inches or greater may be taken.
The restrictions for bucks in TX.... I really don't understand where BuckRub is coming from.... He is in an area where there are large amounts of deer.... If he is a meat hunter..he is not affected either way.... Most of the folks I know.. Don't have his same thoughts.... Sorry dude... Everyone I know from Freestone and Leon counties are interested in mature bucks and better horns....
at least one unbranched antler, or
an inside spread of 13 inches or greater. The inside spread requirement does not apply to any buck that has an unbranched antler.
Not more than one buck with an inside spread of 13 inches or greater may be taken.
The restrictions for bucks in TX.... I really don't understand where BuckRub is coming from.... He is in an area where there are large amounts of deer.... If he is a meat hunter..he is not affected either way.... Most of the folks I know.. Don't have his same thoughts.... Sorry dude... Everyone I know from Freestone and Leon counties are interested in mature bucks and better horns....
Hunting goes deep in my family roots and I'm gonna do all I can to keep it going. And hunting means nothing to me about the size of the rack or how many points. To me it's about making memories and bring home and processing some meat for my family and myself. Even a big ole fat doe is just as big as a trophy as "Your" 12 pointer you got mounted. And you say it doesn't affect me ? Like I said its got more negatives than positives and if hunters are no longer hunting because of this or young kids are not getting into hunting than I think it affects us all. Like I said, if we don't make more hunters than we probably get more and more antis.
And way back in my family's history and y'all's I'm sure hunting meant nothing about "let that one walk, we'll kill a wall hanger" No they hunted for the pleasure plus to bring home some meat. Most people are way to hung up on hunting means a huge buck ! Maybe it's just me,at be I'm backwards well if so I'm not gonna change. Happy Hunting !
And way back in my family's history and y'all's I'm sure hunting meant nothing about "let that one walk, we'll kill a wall hanger" No they hunted for the pleasure plus to bring home some meat. Most people are way to hung up on hunting means a huge buck ! Maybe it's just me,at be I'm backwards well if so I'm not gonna change. Happy Hunting !
It is a far stretch to blame having fewer deer hunters on antler restrictions. We have fewer deer hunters and we have never had antler restrictions. A lot of guys have just gotten bored with it and young people seem to be less and less interested in it. I don't worry about the antis because deer are becoming a nuisance if they aren't already.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
ZeroJunk said:
Indeed it is...
NY had no APRs of any kind during the years of that chart, except possibly pilot programs in the last year or two, I don't know exactly when they started.
Deer are a big nuisance here too. Do you know many many gardens I have lost to deer through the years? And I do t care about antis either but what hunting rights we have I'd like to keep them ! You wouldn't care if you could or could not hunt ? And I'm just saying that's what it reported is it really makes less and less hunters want to join it. Like I said , I don't even have to worry about it in Texas but I will join with hunters nationwide and try to keep what we can.
But as a whole I'm sure if our forefathers seen what hunting has turned into they'd be very disappointed.
But as a whole I'm sure if our forefathers seen what hunting has turned into they'd be very disappointed.
Cute little graph there Pizza, even as much as I don't believe everything we see. I'm sure that APR doesn't only reduce hunters. There's a lot more of my friends I used to hunt with and they no longer hunt and a lot of it has to do with fast food, times we live in, people of microwave living, etc, etc, and etc. yes I hunt with a rifle and scope and I still hunt with a recurve traditionally. Why, it's in my blood and I like to keep the heritage going.
All in all. We believe very different and here were stating our differences but in the end we'll still believe the same and do things very different from one another.
All in all. We believe very different and here were stating our differences but in the end we'll still believe the same and do things very different from one another.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
I don't understand what any of that has to do with APRs.
I shoot doe. A lot of doe. Most of the deer I shoot, probably 8:1 are doe and probably 25:1 against racked bucks.
APRs almost always exclude young hunters. The kids are not kept from shooting their deer.
Doe harvests typically go up, then drop slightly, then level off, while much of the difference is made up by racked bucks.
They don't stop issuing or typically reduce doe tags in APR zones. Often, MORE doe tags are issued, if areas are over-populated.
It doesn't have the slightest impact on tradition, passing on the sport or the way you choose to hunt.
The only thing that changes is that immature bucks, and yes, the 1 in 100 that never grows a real rack, are protected.
I shoot doe. A lot of doe. Most of the deer I shoot, probably 8:1 are doe and probably 25:1 against racked bucks.
APRs almost always exclude young hunters. The kids are not kept from shooting their deer.
Doe harvests typically go up, then drop slightly, then level off, while much of the difference is made up by racked bucks.
They don't stop issuing or typically reduce doe tags in APR zones. Often, MORE doe tags are issued, if areas are over-populated.
It doesn't have the slightest impact on tradition, passing on the sport or the way you choose to hunt.
The only thing that changes is that immature bucks, and yes, the 1 in 100 that never grows a real rack, are protected.
Big Al said:
These days we hunt the 'home place' on the edge of the prairie, so we get whatever comes through. The deer are generally trotting or running and they cross the safe shooting zone pretty quick. We might see a half dozen deer cross the place after the shooting starts; see roughly a 60/40 ratio of does to bucks.
Pre APR, we saw an eating-sized deer and we shot it. Both of us would always kill a deer of either sex and both of us have literally shoo'ed off runts and babies during the season.
Post APR, here's the situation when we see a buck- usually at 100-300 yards and on the move:
Don't be fooled by size. The buck on the left has a large rack, but it has only three points on each side—just like the one on the right. Both of these deer are illegal under the four-point restriction.
http://mdc.mo.gov/hunting-trapping/...s/antler-point-restrictions-selected-counties
We hunt the home place because we get 'free' landowner tags.Yes I could buy a statewide tag and when time permits, go someplace with better pickings. That's exactly what the wife and I did prior to APR. Screw that. I'm not paying the state for the privilege of squinting at antler points through a set of binoculars when I can do it on my own place for free.
Wow, deer hunting is great fun these days.
When the rut is active those little bucks are the easiest deer to kill to the point you almost feel sorry for the dumb bastards. If you need the meat I can understand taking whatever you can. Otherwise, I don't see being particularly thrilled about killing one. Like BuckRub said, a doe generally taste better and is more tender. And, the vast majority of people are thrilled to kill a mature large rack buck.
I'll stick to just not liking the government telling you what to do and using some curious logic to justify the position exclusive of that.
I'll stick to just not liking the government telling you what to do and using some curious logic to justify the position exclusive of that.
reloader28
New member
We have a 4 point rule here sometimes and it works great. I wish it was all the time.
In 2 years there are nice BIG bucks running everywhere. Without the rule all the idiots from town come out and shoot EVERY buck in sight.
They all say the same thing, "I'm just a meat hunter". If that was the case they would be thinning out does instead of shooting every little fork horn buck that they see.
In 2 years there are nice BIG bucks running everywhere. Without the rule all the idiots from town come out and shoot EVERY buck in sight.
They all say the same thing, "I'm just a meat hunter". If that was the case they would be thinning out does instead of shooting every little fork horn buck that they see.
As I see it APR does two things, one it allows immature or at least bucks with less than 4 points on a side (missouri) to survive another year, it also encourages the harvest of does, which was one of the reasons for the program in MO, as it is primarily in the deer population heavy northern part of the state. And it works to a point, after a few years of increased doe harvest by meat hunters (which by the way I do consider "real" hunters), then the younger bucks have grown up and become available also so the ratio of buck to doe harvest balances again. Around my property I have had more problems associated with those looking for big antlers than those looking for meat, big antlers cause some hunters to loose their common sense, trespassing, shooting from the road, spotlighting etc. Also I am not sure how the age of a buck when it breeds a doe affects it genetics, if you are looking for the genetic ability of a buck to grow big antlers, then the age at which it breeds doesn't affect it genetics. I believe that the numbers of hunters are shrinking pretty much nationwide, and not because of lack of deer to shoot.
BuckRub said:
I like fewer hunters in the field. Makes for a more enjoyable experience.
Sometimes - I think we have too many hunters.
Sometimes - I think some hunters should find a different sport.
Sometimes - I am glad to see certain hunters in the woods.
I don't think it is hunter numbers that are going to save hunting, I think it is quality hunters who are going to save hunting.
If APR's weed out the first group and help make better experiences for the second, I am all for APR's.