WI Minimum Antler Restriction Petition on Change.org

[Rutnstrut]

I've said this many times before. Get rid of group bagging, and it'll be more beneficial to everyone than antler restrictions ever could.

[First Sit]

Just my opinion and I know this is a little off topic. But I think the WI DNR should raise the cost of non resident tags. It would keep some guys from coming in from other states to "just shoot a buck." Non resident tags I believe are $160 in Wisconsin. I know Kansas, Iowa and Illinois are way more than that, I bet most states are. Just my 2 cents...

I would actually like to see that cost lowered to promote more hunters and promote family hunting trips. Not price people out.

I paid 80 for first time buyer in Wis this year and substantially more in Illinois. Saw a lot more guys hunting in Illinois and everyone I saw in Wis was a resident. I like the price structure of Wis especially attracting people with first time buyer prices. It's also not apples to apples to compare wis an otc state to a high quality draw state such as Iowa.

[First Sit]

I’ve heard mixed reviews about the APR area in Michigan. It’s a 13 county area in the northwest part of the state where the soil is generally poor and it could be considered big woods even tho there is some ag in that area. Doing my own research, the biggest bucks and higher deer densities are still shot in the southern half of the lower peninsula in the farm belt where there are no aprs except voluntary and where the least amount of public land is

I do a decent amount of public land grouse and woodcock hunting in the nw Lower peninsula of Michigan and prior to the apr seeing rubs by good bucks wasn't all that common. Since the aprs I see good rubs on public almost daily now in that area and a lot more young buck rubs. We cover a lot of ground in a day though but it must be working for them to some extent. The deer density is still low however but I feel that more bucks reach the 2nd yr of antlers. Also a lot of 1.5 yr bucks are not legal under the apr in that area of Michigan which might not be the case in a lot of wis as a good number of 1.5 yr old bucks I saw this yr in wis had 4 pts on a side.

[cspot]

Coming from PA I have had quite a bit of experience as we have had APR's for about 16 years now. Truthfully I have some mixed emotions about them myself, but will post a few facts about PA. I live in an area that you have to have "3 up" on one side. The brow tine doesn't count.

1. 2/3 of hunters approve/like APR's.
2. Kids can shoot any buck that they like.
3. Hunter's success rates have remained the same before/after APRs were implemented. If you think of it it makes sense as every year about the same percentage of bucks are protected, so you really have the same amount of legal bucks every year.
4. APR's are not about shooting trophy buck. Since they have been introduced I have only seen 1 buck within a mile of our farm that would have exceeded 140"
5. What APR's gives you is a fair amount of darn nice 8 points that are in the 90 to 120" range at 2.5 years old. Truthfully the kind of buck that makes most guys including myself happy to shoot.
6. There are still 1.5 year old buck that you can shoot as well. I see several every year that are legal.
7. APR's do allow some legal buck to escape because guys have to take a second to ensure it is legal before shooting. Sometimes it is enough for the buck to live another day.

[cspot]

Just my opinion and I know this is a little off topic. But I think the WI DNR should raise the cost of non resident tags. It would keep some guys from coming in from other states to "just shoot a buck." Non resident tags I believe are $160 in Wisconsin. I know Kansas, Iowa and Illinois are way more than that, I bet most states are. Just my 2 cents...

I would actually like to see that cost lowered to promote more hunters and promote family hunting trips. Not price people out.

I agree. This year Ohio did away with the youth discount for NR license. Paying $180 a piece for a license and deer tag gets expensive when you have 3 kids that hunt. I never minded for myself, but don't know why they did that. Resident Youth still have a discounted license.

[BorealBushMN]

The tradition of hunting is a far greater concern and where we should place our focus, not the quantity of bone on a deers head. Giving the 'Anti's", and more importantly, those that are neutral, the perception that all hunters care about are "trophies", makes it that much harder to maintain our way of life. There are more of "them" then there are of "us". We need to keep the "neutral" folks on our side as best we can.

But as far as APR regs go, if you live in an area where the landscape allows for high deer densities, then I wouldn't be against some type of APR. It would be an easier sell for management like that to actually improve the "herd health". Now in areas with low deer densities, I would not in favor at all. I feel like a lot of hunters would start to stay home if they constantly have to pass on the small number of deer they get a chance at seeing every year because of the lack of bone on it's head. If you see this as being "their problem" or fail to see the problem with this scenario, then you fail to see the forest through the trees.

But in a perfect world, if I had to make a choice on what management strategy I would implement to increase mature bucks....I think a buck tag lottery is the best option out there. Look at some of the western states. Folks aren't guaranteed a tag every year, it's always a lottery. There are some units with monster deer roaming the landscape because of this.

[Scratchman]

Depends on the place. Vt has them so we kill all the animals that show good potential in the first year, and leave the spikes. If you track you can't catch them on the jump shot, to hard to coun't points. If you use open sights forget about shooting over 50 yards unless it's obviously not close. Personal choice is how people shoot big bucks. NH has no restrictions and much better deer. There is more than one way to skin a cat, antler restrictions limit opportunity.

[Bowhunting Brian]

What is "a healthy herd" to begin with? Is it something some guy made up or is there real science behind? I get overpopulation but what else? Seems the guy with the petition just wants a change for his own person reasons. I havnt really heard others talking about APR's in WI. Not in a bar or in forums on the internet.

[Lockdown]

Was trying to stay out of this one. I didn’t read the whole thread either.

All I can say is we have restrictions on almost everything across the country. Fish, moose, elk, sheep, etc etc

There are parts of west central MN that have pretty good deer numbers, and parts that don’t. In most areas the overwhelming majority of bucks get shot at 1.5. I don’t see why wanting to balance the herd a little is such a bad thing.

My viewpoint is if people are ok with the DNR telling them what they can and can’t keep for fish (1 walleye over 20”, the rest go back) what makes deer so different? We don’t want to fish the lakes out, so it’s all good. But trying to let a few bucks slip through the cracks isn’t?

I know most guys that are against APR in my area are against it because they’ve never shot a 130” or bigger. They think it will never happen even with APR.

There’s a lot of guys that oppose any form of change with MN’s deer season. I’ll never understand why the brown it’s down roots run so deep here.

[Lockdown]

What is "a healthy herd" to begin with? Is it something some guy made up or is there real science behind? I get overpopulation but what else? Seems the guy with the petition just wants a change for his own person reasons. I havnt really heard others talking about APR's in WI. Not in a bar or in forums on the internet.

I know of areas where the does outnumber the bucks 6 or 8 to 1. I call that unhealthy... not that the deer are starving or diseased. Nature’s ratio is 1:1 and I’ve never seen a biologist that condones anything more lopsided than 4:1

A few years ago I talked to a shed hunter at a popular (and VERY large) piece of public. He said that December he counted 90 some does before he saw a buck. Mind you, this is in a doe lottery area where you have to draw a doe tag. If you do an shoot one, you’re season is done.

[cspot]

APR's make the most sense in my opinion where you have high hunter densities and or low deer densities. In states where you have low hunter density it isn't needed as there are bucks surviving into older age classes. I think prior to AR in PA we were killing something like 80% of the 1.5 year old buck.

APR's do not limit the amount of opportunity to shoot a buck. Like I said in PA hunter success rates for bucks have stayed the same after APR's as before.

As a hypothetical situation let's say in a given area that prior to APR there was 50 bucks available for harvest. Once APR's are instituted you would have 70 bucks in that area, but 20 are off limits so you still have 50 buck available for harvest.

Like I said in PA 2/3 of hunters approve of APR. From living in this state my whole life I can tell you that PA hunters hate any change that comes along, so that is saying something. PA has always been a traditional its brown, its down state.

I do agree the a lottery system would be the best system, but that limits opportunity so that is why it isn't used in most places.

On a last note APR's need to be sized appropriately for the area and buck quality. In PA we have 2 different standards for different areas of the state. In the mountains a buck has a lower limit. It isn't good to keep too many buck for herd health either.

[cspot]

For those that want to see some data from PA here is a link.

https://www.pgc.pa.gov/Wildlife/Wildlif ... rking.aspx

[cspot]

I would also add that APR's are definitely not about making trophies. PA has had them for 16 years or so. If it was about trophies PA would be on the Top 5 list for big buck destinations. Last I checked we were not.

[Kraftd]

What is "a healthy herd" to begin with? Is it something some guy made up or is there real science behind? I get overpopulation but what else? Seems the guy with the petition just wants a change for his own person reasons. I havnt really heard others talking about APR's in WI. Not in a bar or in forums on the internet.

I know of areas where the does outnumber the bucks 6 or 8 to 1. I call that unhealthy... not that the deer are starving or diseased. Nature’s ratio is 1:1 and I’ve never seen a biologist that condones anything more lopsided than 4:1

A few years ago I talked to a shed hunter at a popular (and VERY large) piece of public. He said that December he counted 90 some does before he saw a buck. Mind you, this is in a doe lottery area where you have to draw a doe tag. If you do an shoot one, you’re season is done.

This seems like more of an argument for Earn a Buck than APRs to me. Dewey mentioned it earlier, but in the areas where there truly were too many does in WI, EAB was great for buck numbers and quality. Needs to be a better year by year, county by county evaluation though. Yous tart going after does, on public in particular, and things can crater QUICKLY.

I'd also wonder if the bucks aren't there in high doe number areas in many cases, they just have even less reason to move around when they can have a season't worth of does within smelling distance at all times. In areas with plenty of food and big doe groups, a buck may not have to move more than a few hundred yards all season in reality.

Anyway, I'm all for it just on the theory that more 2.5s means more chances for a few ore to slip through, but in WI, I don't think this is the management issue on most public land.

[Lockdown]

What is "a healthy herd" to begin with? Is it something some guy made up or is there real science behind? I get overpopulation but what else? Seems the guy with the petition just wants a change for his own person reasons. I havnt really heard others talking about APR's in WI. Not in a bar or in forums on the internet.

I know of areas where the does outnumber the bucks 6 or 8 to 1. I call that unhealthy... not that the deer are starving or diseased. Nature’s ratio is 1:1 and I’ve never seen a biologist that condones anything more lopsided than 4:1

A few years ago I talked to a shed hunter at a popular (and VERY large) piece of public. He said that December he counted 90 some does before he saw a buck. Mind you, this is in a doe lottery area where you have to draw a doe tag. If you do an shoot one, you’re season is done.

This seems like more of an argument for Earn a Buck than APRs to me. Dewey mentioned it earlier, but in the areas where there truly were too many does in WI, EAB was great for buck numbers and quality. Needs to be a better year by year, county by county evaluation though. Yous tart going after does, on public in particular, and things can crater QUICKLY.

I'd also wonder if the bucks aren't there in high doe number areas in many cases, they just have even less reason to move around when they can have a season't worth of does within smelling distance at all times. In areas with plenty of food and big doe groups, a buck may not have to move more than a few hundred yards all season in reality.

Anyway, I'm all for it just on the theory that more 2.5s means more chances for a few ore to slip through, but in WI, I don't think this is the management issue on most public land.

The example I gave was after they’d yarded up late season. That zone should be hunters choice at a minimum (everyone gets 1 tag, you can shoot either a buck or doe). That would help a lot.

And Dave I agree with your last paragraph. APR would put a decent number of 2.5’s in the mix. A few trophies would result as well.

A couple of my best spots would be pretty cherry if APR went into effect. It’ll never happen in MN with all the CWD BS. They’re talking about eliminating APR in the SE because of it.