I find myself in an interesting situation. I feel strongly about a movement I don’t agree with, but I don’t want to weaken the hunting community by fighting about it.
That conundrum is in regard to the most recent initiative by proponents of mandatory antler point restrictions (APR’s). The group first started in Leelanau County in NW Lower Michigan but more recently has expanded to several surrounding counties.
Now they’ve set their sights on the rest of the lower peninsula.
I’ve been vocal about my opposition to that plan and lots of pro APR folks are pretty upset with me. In fact, one post on the Outdoor Magazine facebook page called me a “snake in the grass”. Here’s that post.
I don’t mind being called names, in fact I’m getting quite used to it…from the antis, not from fellow hunters.
With that in mind, let me take this opportunity to address that criticism, state why I’m not a fan of mandatory antler point restrictions and ask the question where do we go from here?
I’m not sure why an occasional out of state hunt disqualifies me from having an opinion on whitetail management here in Michigan. I don’t think those two activities are mutually exclusive. I’ve spent far more time hunting here in Michigan than anywhere else and I do have a strong interest in the heritage of hunting in my home state.
Regardless, I’ll respond to the post.
I first started going to other states to hunt (Kansas and Ohio) back when I had a TV show. I was invited by outfitters looking for exposure. I jumped at that opportunity to see what deer hunting in other states was like. I did take two decent bucks over the years in Kansas, but I haven’t hunted there for three years now. I go to Ohio every year to hunt with Bill Pyles of Ohio Bowhunting Outfitters. While I’ve had opportunities at bucks, I haven’t harvested one there in about ten years.
The folks in Ohio have become friends and I go to visit with them as much as for the hunting.
In both Kansas and Ohio I’ve passed lots of smaller bucks I didn’t want to kill….just like here in Michigan.
In fact, I suspect hunting in Ohio is much like Southern Michigan, though I haven’t been lucky enough to hunt the big buck country in that part of our state.
Again, I’m not sure how this is pertinent to the discussion of deer hunting here in Michigan. In Ohio I won’t shoot a 1.5 year old buck, or even a 2.5. The last buck I shot in Kansas was probably 2.5 years old but I thought he was older at the time. Any future bucks would have to be bigger. Here in Michigan I have the same standards.
Where’s the problem?
Despite the claims in that post mentioned earlier, I’ve never said QDM folks are “villains” or “bloodsuckers”. In fact, I’m in favor of quality deer management philosophies like habitat improvement, harvesting more does and yes, passing on smaller bucks.
My problem is with mandatory antler point restrictions, and not from a biological perspective, but rather common decency.
I don’t think one hunter has the right to tell another how they should hunt, or what they should harvest.
If you ask almost any Michigan deer hunter if they want bigger bucks of course the answer will be yes. Getting to that goal is the problem.
You can quote survey statistics saying that roughly two thirds of Michigan deer hunters in a given area are in favor of mandatory APR’s. Personally, I think the number is lower. Based on my interaction with a large number of deer hunters across the state I say it’s closer to 50/50. Regardless of the exact number, there’s no doubt a significant percentage of Michigan deer hunters do not want mandatory antler point restrictions. In fact, based on the comments I hear, lots of those hunters feel this initiative is being forced down their throat…and that’s what bothers me.
At a time when our hunting lifestyle is being attacked on many levels, why would the Deer Management Initiative (DMI) people intentionally alienate fellow Michigan hunters?
The initiative to expand antler point restrictions beyond Leelanau County hasn’t even been approved yet, but the group is already targeting the rest of the lower peninsula.
It’s no wonder many hunters feel like this movement is a runaway freight train.
I’d like to see the DMI groups put their resources into an education program promoting voluntary QDM and the concept of letting smaller bucks pass. In my opinion hunters are more likely to go along with something by choice, rather than a mandate initiated by fellow hunters.
The concept of hunters fighting amongst ourselves is nothing new. In fact, I wrote a blog piece about it three years ago.
The difference now is the hunting lifestyle is under direct attack. The politicians at the federal level want to take our guns away and the Humane Society of the United States is trying to insert it’s anti hunting agenda into our wildlife management system. This is not the time for hunters to argue about details of how we hunt deer.
Most Michigan deer hunters just want to be left alone to enjoy their sport. With so many outside forces trying to mandate how we do that, I hate to see a disagreement about antler size be viewed as a weakness by those who want to take this lifestyle away from us.
Hi mike. Im in Texas. We have antler restrictions. Spike. 13 inch and over. As a dad of a 7 yr old and 10 yr old. It would stink for kids to wait and wait then see a deer then dad says cant shoot that one talk about turning kids off from hunting.
Mike. ……you NAILED it…..and your right on the money. ….on your response. …..deer hunting is simply that ….deer hunting. ….if you choose to trophy hunt do it…bringing young hunters up in the field and telling them we have to shoot only bigger racks is…..well…stupid …kinda like watching deer shows and you only see and kill big bucks. ….keep up the good writing and shows…..I don’t always agree with you always. …but you nailed this one!!!
Mike, The fact is that youth would be exempt from the APR rule. I hope shooting a buck or a deer period is not the only reason young hunters deer hunt. You also seemed to emprace the APR after you had one of the supporters of APR on your show. Then you change your tune when you have someone on that may not have the facts correct. You seem to flip flop like our polititions. Get someone on your show that can explain the facts of APR.
Ken Karbowski, I agree that kids should be exempt from APR’s and I also think elderly hunters should be able to shoot what they want as well. I’ve never flip flopped on this issue. I don’t like mandatory antler point restrictions. Period. At one point, after the initiative appeared to pass in the NW unit, I did say on air that even though I don’t like them, who was I to question the will of hunters in that area? However, based on input I’ve received from across the state, I’m just not convinced that a majority of Michigan deer hunters want to be told what to harvest by fellow hunters. As I said in this blog post though, there’s comes a point where continued argument about a subject fails to move the discussion forward.
Mike, you can’t take on the responsibility for weakening the hunting community. The argument and division already is there. The community is weakening itself. We are left between a rock and a hard place. Like telling your wife you don’t like what she cooked for dinner. If you tell her you might get hit with the frying pan. If you don’t she might make it again.
Mike; You say “The Leelanau county APR project was only a couple years old and the initiative was expanded to twelve additional counties.” In actuality, the APRs in Leelanau Count were started in 2003, so we have 9 seasons of data. After 5 years, a DNR survey was done showing 72% of landowners and 72% of hunters supported continuing them. Other than the first year, buck harvest rates and hunter success have remained stable or risen, so hunters are killing just as many bucks as they were before APRs. Harvest of yearlings went from an average of 65% in the 3 years before APRs to 20% the last 3 years. Harvest of 3.5 year old and older bucks went from 13% to 50% in the same period. While hunter numbers in the 12 counties currently under consideration for APRs have fallen by an average of 20%, hunter numbers have remained stable in Leelanau County. I hope you will look more closely into the facts related to Leelanau County to avoid passing on incorrect information like; “The Leelanau county APR project was only a couple years old and the initiative was expanded to twelve additional counties.” It is simply not true. The DNR has collected huge amounts of data that indicate this was an overwhelming success and is supported by hunters in the region.
Jim Brauker. The information I quoted was given to me by the DNR.
Mike…I’ve hunted Leelanau County my whole life. I’ve shot spikes and small 8 points there. I welcomed the antler restrictions and while I’ve seen some nice bucks since the implimentation of the 3 point rule, but as of yet have not harvested one. Partly I think due to the lower deer numbers. I do see more bucks with 3 or more points than I ever have and that is over 30+ years of hunting there. I don’t have a problem with antler restrictions. I wish they would take away one of the buck tags though. If QDM is not liked by so many people, tell me why I’ve seen an increase in hunters wanting to take advantage of the bigger buck opprtunities in Leelanau County?
MIke; Was that back in 2005?:)
Jim Brauker you are absolutely correct. I was given bad information regarding the year APR’s were initiated in Leelanau County. My fault, I should have verified that info. I have re-written a couple lines in my blog post to reflect that updated knowledge. However, it does not affect my perception of the situation or my thoughts on the mandatory antler point restriction movement. Thanks for the heads up.
The “science” used by QDM is ambiguous at best. There is more that affects the herd, than this measure. The worst part of it is the arrogance of the supporters. Anyone that says anything against QDM is flamed, attacked, and insulted. It is extremely childish behavior as it is impossible to carry on a meaningful conversation.
Mike, I totaly understand your view on leaving the choice up to the hunter and i respect that. Do you have any suggestions though to improve our states hunting. Some will say the hunting is just fine but after attending an rdat meeting in cadillac The mdnr says other wise as far as hunter numbers declining, hunter retention, hunter recruitment and hunter satisfaction. It seems our youth are not staying interested in deer hunting.
After looking at the statistics for 045 and 122 we can see hunter retention is positive along with hunter satisfaction, while other dmus are declining in that regard.
Sometimes Mike i think we need to look at the overall picture and maybe consider making a sacrifice for the over all good. If Aprs are indeed contributing to retention recruitment and satisfaction for a couple of dmus shouldnt we at least consider making a sacrifice, like choice, and try something out like APRS to try and improve hunting throghout this state. Dont you think we should at least look into doing something for retention, recruitment, and hunter satisfaction. Or are you good with just letting our numbers decline further?
As I said on the facebook page, I’d like to see Michigan go to a one buck rule. I also think we’re moving the right direction regarding hunter recruitment with the elimination of the minimum hunting age and the new apprentice license.
Game management was never intended to be by popular vote. The DNR by mandate of the Public Trust Doctrine (PTD), Prop G and now SB 288, say “sound science.” A regulation based on a submitted proposal by a special interest, and passed on a majority vote is not “sound science”, its politics. Politics creates division, and is probably one of the biggest reasons the DNR are not to abdicate their duties of game management to the will of the people. We keep passing laws to keep the anti’s from having a say in our game management, SB 288 is an example of that. Yet our own DNR is not following the mandate of the law. Special interests and those seeking monetary gain in the hunting and fishing community will push selective regulation to benefit themselves. Demand our DNR regulates by the laws its mandated to regulate by. Let the biologists manage our game, not the special interest.
I agree Ray.
Mike, In listening to #2 of 6/29 show, you seem to be getting a ton of mileage out of comment that one (1) person made ie: “snake in the grass”. That person is not a member of the LP DMI and does not speak for our group.
We believe as you do that VAPRs are superior to MAPR, in fact I have been promoting them peninsula wide for over a decade via the Deer Management Cooperative route so I KNOW that APRs work, and result in happier hunters, more balanced sex ratios, herds in balance with habitat, and older overall buck age distribution. My observations are supported by an MSU grad students masters work on the same subject.
All of that said, we in Michigan, continue to include 62% 1.5 yo bucks in our annual statewide harvest (67% in the SLP and 58% in the NLP).
The LP DMI felt this was a concern so we investigated what options were available to address the issue via regulation change, and are now following to a “T” the process in place.
Some like yourself, RPS, Tom L., or Dan D. would suggest that we are playing the system, or that we’re in bed with the MDNR/NRC, or that the fix is in and APRs are inevidable or a train that can’t be stopped.
You make claims that we are “well funded”. We are funded by donations by people who support our proposal, a practice as old as time.
You’re more optimistic than we are that APRs, especially in zone 3, are an inevidability, we know that our work is cut for us and the misinformation machine that has the airwaves is a monster we have to combat.
Despite your claims to want to avoid the APR debate you continue to load the airways on your show with those that support YOUR view point. Hey! It’s your show and this is America, we should BOTH be able to pursue our opinions and beliefs in an orderly and legal fashion. Please respect the fact that, that is exactly what the LP DMI is doing by following the process put in place by the powers that be.
Concerning the MUCC..the LP DMI has no opinion on the organizations position on APRs. We have not sought their endorsement, nor do we feel we need it. I serve on the MUCC’s Conservation Coalition as a representative of the State Council of the QDMA and support their position on this topic. It’s reasonable to expect Tony Hansen to foster the MUCC’s non position on APRs when he is speaking as a representative of the MUCC, however he has strong views on the subject that he expresses in other venues, as he has that right.
Sorry we missed you in Clare, but Gaylord is coming up on July 9th and West Branch on July 18th. It would be refreshing to hear you speak about our proposal armed with some information.
Hi Tony,
I have no idea whether that person is an official member of your group. It’s hard for me as an outsider to decipher who can officially speak for your group and who is just spouting off. I do know that a person who is a member of your group has suggested you start your own statewide radio show to counter my statements, so of course I’m going to react negatively to such comments. Folks who support MAPR’s (whether official members of your group or not) have attacked me in a manner that is quite disappointing and even disturbing.
Regardless, I’ve referred to the “snake in the grass” comment several times because it’s a statement that illustrates the demeanor of the MAPR movement. Whether you want to admit it or not, your group has a public relations problem. Your group started the fight by being overly aggressive, demeaning and outright mean on many of the online forums. At first people were reluctant to question or disagree with the initiative. My sense now is that’s starting to change. I believe a significant percentage of Michigan hunters disagree with what you are trying to achieve…and they resent the way the agenda has been pushed.
I have not been to any of the informational meetings because of schedule conflicts. However, I’ve received reports from every one of them. I can’t imagine anything would be said that would change my opinion on mandatory antler point restrictions.
Despite your comments to the contrary, I have lots of information about your proposal, I just choose to disagree with it.
Mike Avery