Bowsite.com

The ears are not droopy enough.

I don't know for sure, but, it seems I may have seen this picture somewhere before.

http://www.bowhunting.com/blog-archive/post/30-point-whitetail-buck-harvested.aspx

------------------------------------------------------

"Some of the mystery that surrounds this phenomenal whitetail buck is truly fascinating! From the stories of a small Amish boy who made a stalk on this buck through a standing cornfield in Wisconsin, to a small tavern owner outside St. Paul, Minnesota. A gun hunter from Georgia, an Amish man from Iowa, even your buddy from the neighboring county! It seems that everyone has claimed the prize of this 30 point buck with no real owner to be found. The most truthful insight of this non-typical seems to stem from the 2006 Ohio archery season. According to this tale, on opening day of that year a young Amish hunter on the Ohio river around Adams county arrowed this buck. Shot with crossbow, the hunter, Jonathon Schmucker declined the photo as it is against his Amish custom. The massive non-typical buck was green scored at 304"! With a 24" inside spread! If this is the true story to this now legendary 30 point buck can you imagine not getting your picture taken with it.

------------------------------------------------------ :>)

KPC

Toe

I'm so glad you asked that question.

The idea behind APRs is to protect SOME yearling bucks to allow them to reach adulthood. This buck went well beyond adulthood. He is very likely between 5, and 8 yrs old, and has not been protected, if he ever was, by APRs for quite some time.

Now as to the question of, is this buck more healthy because of his age, or the size of his antlers? Obviously his age does not in, and of itself, make him healthy. But he did not live to be his age without being healthy. And the size of his antlers suggests that he was indeed quite healthy.

In other words deer aren't healthy simply because of how many years they have been alive, but rather, deer will not live to be very old if they are not healthy.

In that sense older deer, are in fact, a sign of a healthy population.

Some? In the 12 County Area of the NLP, it means practically ALL. Why are you backpeddling?

"In that sense older deer, are in fact, a sign of a healthy population. "

Huh? If we are restricted from shooting them, and they get older, how does that make them healthier?? (other than the obvious, "if we shoot them, they are permanently unhealthy")

They will just live out their normal lives in the same state of health they were last year when you passed on them.

But here we call em X-guns... :)

APRs will only protect SOME yearling males. I'm am unaware of anyone saying anything different. It should be obvious though. APRs are not perfect in that sense. Neither is any other method that I am aware of. But it will protect some. And some is better than none.

Whether a younger population of deer is healthy or unhealthy is difficult to assess. The health of the population becomes much more clear as they grow older. In fact, as I mentioned above, deer dont grow old when they are unhealthy. Therefore an older population of deer is good sign of a healthy population of deer.

Preacher, I did not start the APR discussion. I simply answered a question that someone else asked. Feel free to ignore it.

Man, the winter doldrums have set in!

Toe

P.S. I hate crossguns, love baiting and don't get me started on T.N. (Hi Dave) :):):)

Not necessarily. One could also argued that as deer grow older, they become increasingly less healthy, and increasingly infected with certain diseases, which could jeopardize the entire herd, both young and old.

KPC

KPC, a person could argue that. It goes along with Mr Sweeny's recent article that I replied to in the thread "Much Ado About Nothing".

See when an older deer becomes sick from something like TB, it is because that disease is already in the population. Not because the deer is older. Being older does not make a deer sick. Having disease in the herd makes that deer sick. diseases in the population become more apparent as the deer age. A diseased deer however will not live to a ripe old age because it will die from the disease. Therefore having good numbers of older deer in the population is indeed a SIGN of a healthy deer herd.

In other words, when it becomes dangerous to allow a deer to reach adulthood out of fear it will spread disease, I would suggest that that deer population is in trouble, and not healthy to begin with.

Based on your stance about older deer having higher prevalance of disease, only when there is disease present in that area, am I correct in assuming that you are also in agreement that baiting deer in areas with no disease poses no additional risk?

KPC

If your dismissing my arguments your dismissing common sense.

"Based on your stance about older deer having higher prevalance of disease only when there is disease present in that area, am I correct in assuming that you are also in agreement that baiting deer in areas with no disease poses no additional risk?"

KPC

A population of mostly juveniles suggests something is wrong.

Using the argument that allowing deer to reach adulthood jeopadizes the health of the entire population shows at best, a lack of understanding.

Your use of the term disease, and the way you have presented it in this discussion, is simply a form of a straw man argument.

So would that be a yes or a no?

KPC

Simply put, the herd does not need them, but apparently some hunters do.

KPC

Its funny that over 50% of hunters all over the state when polled want APR'S but when there is an actual change the side that disagrees makes it appear that its a small little tiny group of a selfish few that wants APR'S. Weather they do this intentionally or its just a byproduct of the debate I don't know. I just know it appears that way quite often.

At this point there is no biological imperative for the spike rule or the 2nd 4 point on one side rule for a 2nd buck. In fact there was never a biological imperative for any antler restriction at all from the very beginning when deer management was 1st implemented. It was mans greed that took over and the old buck hunting rules that everyone here has hunted under their entire life has no biological imperative. Where was everyone the last 30 years fighting for the lifting of any and all restriction on bucks? There is no biological imperative for any of the rules but no one complains until what they are use to is changing.

You are wrong on two counts.

1. The 3" spike rule is not an APR, it is an identifier of what constitutes and "antlered" deer.

2. There most certainly IS a "biological imperative" for targeting antlered deer, if you are going to allow full access to 700,000+ hunters.

Repeating the same falsehoods, even in your new and improved writing style, doesn't make them any less wrong.

KPC

"Michigan's basic statewide deer hunting regulation - an 'antlered deer' defined as one with at least one antler that measured 3 inches or more..."

As to your claim that targeting bucks has no biological basis, I would refer you again to the same article:

"For many years, Michigan restricted hunters to a bucks-only harvest in order to protect the reproductive capacity of the herd. This approach sustained deer populations that, at times, were scarce but still allowed recreational opportunity and a chance to put food on the table"

"Protecting the reproductive capacity of the herd" is most certainly a biological imperative. As to how that relates to 700,000+ hunters is very simple. Michigan has always had a policy that they would allow any hunter that wished to purchase a tag, that opportunity. This is also mentioned in your linked article:

"Given Michigan's tradition of allowing all hunters the opportunity to kill a buck every year and its large hunter population..."

The only way to continue that tradition of allowing all hunters opportunity, even today, is to offer the total access on the antlered portion of the population, and manage the "reproductive capacity" through antlerless harvests, which are limited by DMU, based on population goals. There are some social aspects to this but ultimately, preserving a sustainable herd by "protecting the reproductive capacity" is, at it's very core, a biological one.

The "biological" aspect is futher demonstrated in your linked article when the subject of increasing antlered tags was discussed:

"Because the regulations would not affect the herd's reproductive capacity, there was no biological impact in allowing additional buck harvest."

They even went as far as to say:

"Meanwhile, hunters - who became increasingly successful as the herd increased in size - began seeking different challenges. Many hunters no longer found it satisfying to simply kill a buck; instead, these hunters wanted to seek older bucks with larger antlers - "quality bucks," to coin a phrase."

And...

"APRs require that deer have a certain number of antler points before they can be legally harvested - a radical idea in Michigan."

The idea that APR's have any biolical basis is a myth promulgated in order to "sell" them to the general hunting public. Nowhere in your linked article does it even mention any hint of a biological reason for their implementation, it is simply because some hunters decided that they no longer "found it satisfying" to kill certain bucks. The idea that antler restrictions, or antler point restrictions have been around for a long time is also a ruse. It's an attempt for those in favor to say, "Hey, they've been around forever, we just want to make them a little stricter," and they dishonestly refer back to the 3" spike rule as their basis for argument. This is not the case, and they know it. (or at least they should)

APR's are a relatively new thing, brought about by the idea that there are "quality" bucks to be had and we want to get us some. That is why they are referred to, in your linked article, as a "radical idea in Michigan."

KPC

Sure. It was in the article you linked in your "The history of APRs in MI" thread.

http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153--289216--ra,00.html

All the quotes I posted are directly from that article.

KPC

The most important issue beyond habitat carrying capacity is the further basic understanding that in habitats with adequate food supplies but low deer numbers (as related to HCC), the way to build a larger herd is to protect those animals that can supply fawns. These are the females. You protect them by not shooting them. You don't shoot by having positive identification of the difference between a buck and a doe.

You tell the difference between a buck and doe by the presence of antlers.

You protect does by shooting only bucks. You can only adequately identify that an animal is NOT a buck by the absence of antlers. To make it easy for hunters, the Biologist tells us that a 3" spike is adequate for that identification.

This is the reason for having a 3" spike rule; to make sure that the deer you are shooting at is DEFINITELY NOT a doe.

This allows the does the protection they need, which from a biologically sound standpoint, allows them to birth fawns.

If you eliminate the 3" spike rule, allow any hunter to shoot any deer, there will not be enough does to sustain a huntable population.

Biological imperative.

This is Traditional Whitetail Management at its basics.

APR have no biological imperative. Saving a 3 or 4 point deer does not nothing for the population and in some cases could actually damage it in the short term.

I am interested to know what you know about Lake and Wexford County, public land.

If you allow hunters to take any deer, regardless of sex, you will reduce the population to the point it was in 1963. 500,000 deer statewide.

"More bucks are killed then does even in many areas with a big surplus of does."

Actually the harvest stats indicate otherwise. Its about equal at this point.

"The spike rule is a joke by any standard when you consider the entire picture."

No, it works really well. Regardless of some hunters needing bigger deer to shoot, the spike rule that positively ID's a male deer serves to keep the doe population at a sufficient level to encourage adequate fawn recruitment.

Signed... the Ninny...(rather condescending term, huh?)

First, the biological imperative is NOT that the spikes (or bucks of any size) are the ones that are more needed, it's that they are the one's that are more expendable, and therefore buck tags are available to all hunters. It's the does that are needed to insure adequate fawn recruitment. It's the does that need to be managed more closely. Managing for older bucks, more bucks, or larger antlered bucks, is primarily for hunter satisfaction, nothing biological about it.

For the most part, as long as there are enough bucks to breed the available does, all is good biologically. Therefore, anything beyond that is for the benefit of the hunter.

"The deer in northern MI have smaller antlers and there is a ton of spikes that are under 3 inches compared to southern MI do to the habitat and food source. Most spikes in northern MI are are under 3 inch's especially during early archery." Not exactl sure what you mean by this but let me just say that I have been hunting in northing MI for 35+ years and I can count on less than ten figers the number of bucks that I have seen, that weren't fawns (button bucks), that didn't have at least one 3" antler.

Second, your statement that most spikes in northern MI are "under 3 inches, especially during early archery" is total crap. Once a buck loses his velvet, there is no more antler growth, what he has is all he's going to have for that year. I have personally never seen a buck during bow season in velvet. Not saying it can't happen, but not very often. Certainly not "tons" and most definately not "most."

KPC

Since there is no DNR report that speaks about HCC specifically, I can only use my deductive reasoning to arrive at my conclusion.

In my past discussions with DNR biologists who actually get out from behind their desk and title and get into the woods, their observations regarding HCC and population numbers were targeted to build a visible population, which means more deer for hunters to see. Not more bucks, more deer. When there were not enough deer, they withheld antlerless permits. When the population got close to HCC, they issued them (unless the NRC and DNR brass got involved and over ruled their findings to meet their own agendas)

In the past 5 or 6 years, there were no Antlerless permits allowed on public land in Wexford County. This year they issued 600. This means, in absence of other reports from the DNR that the population is approaching HCC and the does need to be taken out to prevent over population.

That's all I have. If you have something official from the DNR to the contrary, please share.

This is not true. There are indeed biological reasons for implementing APRs.

A person can close his eyes to the truth but that does not eliminate, or change it.

Are all reasons biological? Of course not. But some are.

Yep... the winds of change are blowin............ Blowin smoke right up everyone's back side.......

I would also suggest that many of the arguments against APRs are done from a social perspective as well.

Are all of them? No. But a good many of them are. And a good many more don't even have anything to do with the actual subject. They are just personal insults.

Almost looks like you just couldn't stay away.

Not trying to get you mad, just it seems like maybe you actually like to read this stuff. Otherwise you wouldn't. Just sayin.

Name one.

KPC

I was right I guess, you really don't get it. Now you are argueing against yourself. I've said all along that no buck is any more important to the herd than another. They are sperm donors, that's it. As long as there are enough "donations" being made, that's all that matters "biologically." That is why, if you have 700,000+ hunters, and they all want an opportunity every year, it has to be bucks that are targeted. Over and above that, populations goals are met (or not met) through antlerless harvests.

If you gave 700,000+ hunters the opportunity to harvest a doe every year, it wouldn't be long before the herd would be history. Remember, does make new bucks every year too.

KPC

to promote a balanced deer population. To raise the buck to doe ratio. To promote a population of deer that doesn't rely only on fawn recruitment as the only means for future hunting opportunities. To promote a population of deer whose numbers are easier to control. As opposed to one that is made up of mostly females and is difficult to control.

Now how about you give me a biological reason for not implementing APRs?

Now thats funny right there. Wish I thought of it that way. I'm almost always aprehensive about opening threads. Especially ones about QDM. Cause I know someones going to say somthing nasty about QDMers and I'm probably going to take it personally. Wish it wasn't that way, but I wish alot of things that dont come true. Is what it is.

Hey Merry Christmas though :)

1. To promote a balanced deer population."

Biologically irrelevant to the herd.

2. "To raise the buck to doe ratio."

As long as there are enough bucks to breed the available does, biologically irrelevant to the herd.

3. "To promote a population of deer that doesn't rely only on fawn recruitment as the only means for future hunting opportunities."

Fawn recruitment will always be the only means for future hunting opportunities. APR's only advance the age structure by a year or two, at best, which again is biologically irrelevant to the herd. (see 1&2)

"To promote a population of deer whose numbers are easier to control. As opposed to one that is made up of mostly females and is difficult to control."

APR's do nothing to control doe population. Doe population will always be controlled by the amount of tags issued and the hunters willingness to fill them. Without a corresponding increase in antlerless harvest, APR can actually exacerbate a population problem, and I have seen nothing definitive that shows that APR's increase antlerless harvest.

Would you like to try again?

Just one BIOLOGICAL reason for implementing APR's.

KPC

For real? No kidding...

Exactly what part of the 3" spike thing NOT being an antler restriction don't you get?

Let's try this one more time, and I'm going to put it in all caps so this time maybe you will see it.

******************************************************

A DEER HAVING ONE ANTLER OF AT LEAST 3" IS WHAT DIFFERENTIATES AN "ANTLERED" DEER FROM AN "ATLERLESS DEER." IT IS NOT, NOR HAS IT EVER BEEN AN ANTLER POINT RESTRICTION. IT DOES NOT PROTECT ANYTHING.

IT IS SIMPLY THE BASIS BY WHICH A PERSON KNOWS WHICH TAG TO USE ON A PARTICULAR DEER. IF IT HAS ONE ANTLER OF AT LEAST 3", YOU USE AN "ANTLERED" TAG. IF IT DOES NOT HAVE 1 ANTLER OF AT LEAST 3", OR NO ANTLERS AT ALL, YOU USE AN "ANTLERLESS" TAG.

******************************************************

Until you can comprehend and acknowledge this basic fact, there really isn't anything more for us to discuss.

KPC

However, unlike Manti Teo's girlfriend, this buck does exist, just no where in Michigan:^).

Anyhow, great debate guys. Carry on.....

It IS a restriction, and although it does not include number of points, it is based on antlers and the size thereof.

APRs promote the taking of antlerless deer in areas where the harvest of antlerless deer is approved. Hunters that would otherwise shoot the first yearling buck will have a more difficult time doing so. Therefore are more likely to take the first legal deer they have an opportunity at. In areas of high deer density this will more than likely mean a doe.

Currently deer hunting opportunities rely almost entirely on fawn recruitment. As in fawn recruitment is directly responsible for whether there will be huntable numbers of deer during the following season. If not for fawn recruitment there would not be breedable numbers of male deer in the population. Years of poor fawn recruitment result in subsequent years of poor reproduction as well as the obvious poor hunting opportunities. Case in point is the UP where deer numbers easily crash after years of harsh winters and poor fawn recruitment. I know you agree with this KPC, because you have stated as much. Trouble is you think this is normal. It is not. It is a formula for disaster.

Deer management should focus on yearling recruitment. When such management practices are put into place years of poor fawn recruitment become less noticeable. Not only are there huntable numbers of males, there are good numbers of breeding males, regardless of how many fawns are lost in a given year. It provides a cushion if you will. To absorb years in which great numbers of fawns are lost, and to rebound from them faster.

KPC, you are dismissing the facts I have given you without providing good facts to back up your statements. Everything I have said to you is based on information from biologists. Not from me. If you wish to dismiss it all I can say is you are dismissing good sound scientific information. And you still have not answered my own simple question as to why APRs are in your opinion biologically un founded.

Carry on...

:>)

KPC

This is going to be my last post on this thread regarding this issue. Since you asked a question, I will try to answer your question...yet again.

"And you still have not answered my own simple question as to why APRs are in your opinion biologically un founded."

I don't think APR's are necessarily "biologically un founded" (if what you mean by that is that they are somehow a detriment to the herd, biologically), I just don't think they are biologically necessary, and the biologists agree with that. They have said so repeatedly. That is why, in the absence of a biological necessity, I am all for more opportunity, not less.

I do have some concerns biologically but they are yet to be proven. First of all, the higher prevalence of disease in older bucks is a concern. I know, I know, you've already blown that off, but it is a concern and could prove to be a problem. That is why other states have discontinued APR's in areas of known disease. Apparently, they don't know it's not a concern.

Another concern of mine would be the possibility of overharvesting does, in areas that cannot sustain increased doe harvests. In areas that are at or below population goals, there is a possibility that if hunters are forced to pass on smaller bucks, many may choose to fill their freezers with antlerless deer, taken during the archery season. Many of those who would have normally been happy taking a yearling buck to fill the freezer, might choose to kill a doe in it's place. Every combo tag allows for two does to be taken with archery equipment. If bowhunters start taking does by default, it could prove devastating in areas that are already at or below population goals. Will it happen? I don't know, but it is a concern of mine. Is it a concern downstate? Probably not. For those of us that live and hunt in counties that have been below, or just at goal, for some time now, it is indeed a concern.

Your question is a bit of red herring in that "not biologically necessary," is not the same as "biologically detrimental."

I have always said that if it makes no difference biologically, our goal should always be inclusion, not exclusion.

Lastly, you and I both know that you can come up with all kinds of pseudo-biological reasons for APR's, but one fact remains. If people didn't want to shoot bucks with bigger antlers, nobody (including the deer) would care how many of them exist.

KPC

An "antlered" deer is any deer that has at least one antler, 3" or more in length. That could be a buck or a doe. An antlerless deer is any deer that doesn't have at least one antler 3" in length. That could also be a buck or doe.

KPC

This is an example of the type of behavior that you rail against here. From the start of your appearance here, you criticize this type of response, but I think perhaps you are not recognizing that you invite others to treat you in kind.

Kevin goes out of his way for a long time not to do that, but I can see where he gets frustrated at times.

If you want everyone to play nice in the sandbox, the example you set by your own actions, sets the tone for how people might respond to you. In essence, if you set the bar high, you have to clear the bar every time too.

Sadly hammer, I actually don't think you recognize the difference, that's why I posted it. Your next quote illustrates that quite well.

"Of course a antlered deer is a buck so the tag covers a buck hence a "buck tag" now of course a antlerless deer is a doe and the tag covers a doe hence doe tag."

Many times, thousands of times every season as a matter of fact, an "antlerless deer" ISN'T always a doe. That is precisely why the DNR has taken, and continues to take great pains to educate hunters on how to identify the difference, by including it on their website, and devoting about a third page (page 15 of the current one) of the hunting digest to that very thing:

******************************************************

Learn to Identify "Button Bucks"

Each year many hunters harvest buck fawns, commonly called "button bucks," on antlerless deer licenses. Though legal, harvesting these deer may reduce the number of antlered bucks the following year. By learning the difference between adult does and buck fawns and observing the following suggestions, hunters can make a conscious choice about whether to harvest a buck fawn.

- Look at body shapes of deer. Adult does are different in shape from juvenile deer. The mature doe is rectangular in shape with a long neck and face. Fawns are square-shaped and have a short neck and face.

- Button bucks often travel alone, but adult does rarely do. Consider this when you observe a single antlerless deer.

- Wait until more than three deer are together; then harvest one of the larger antlerless deer.

- If two juvenile deer are without an adult, one will probably be a button buck. Normally the young male is larger than the female and may be mistaken for an adult doe because of its larger size. Look at the head of the deer. A doe's head is normally more rounded on top between the ears, and a buck's head is flattened by the base of the antlers.

- Look closely with binoculars for the antler bases on button bucks.

- Wait until the deer are standing or moving slowly. It is easier to identify sex and age when deer are not running or moving fast.

- Shoot with good visibility. Poor light and heavy cover make it difficult to determine sex and age.

******************************************************

"I have hunted for over 25 years and every time some average Joe gets ready to tag their deer I hear them say my buck tag or my doe permit or doe tag. They do not say my antlerless tag or antlered tag hardly ever. Though its not the legal description it makes no difference because everyone says it like I do that I know and everyone reading this knows exactly whats being said either way. Right? So whats the point I say..."

The point is, it makes a huge difference. I find it somewhat ironic that those that seem to be so concerned about graduating bucks from 1.5 to 2.5, seem to be oblivious to the fact that many bucks, thousands of bucks every year, are killed, and legally tagged as "antlerless" deer, before they even get to the 1.5 stage.

Your problem hammer, is that you keep speaking in circles, continue to post things that are somewhat accurate, marginally true, or not true at all. At the same time you demand that everyone else post "verifiable facts" and links to studies to support what they say.

When anyone calls you on your inaccuracies, misconceptions, and falsehoods, you accuse them of picking on you by being rude and disrespectful. If that doesn't work, you get all high and mighty with your "Ya thinks" and your "Sirs" and your "LMBOs" and your "Mr Boo yaas."

Lastly, "horn porn" is not a term I "often reference" in my posts.

KPC

Yawn...

"Kevin, I wont even respond to those kind of post. You are stirring the pot and you know based on a past conversation about this and my feelings on the loopholes of the regulations regarding spikes and buttons being tagged as does makes me very aware of the regulations. You know it burns my shorts that a hunter can tag a button or spike under 3"s as a doe or "antlerless" I used that just so you can keep up. Your post is just ridiculous and meant to irritate. Well keep trying sir. Go read my post about this regulation and tell me I do not understand."

With all due respect hammer, the issue is not whether or not we've had the discussion before, it's whether you comprehended it, and whether or not you continue to post incorrect and misleading information.

"No one post squat here to back there opinion! They try to push of their opinion as a fact when they have nothing to prove even a small amount of what they say. I challenge you to find any research I have posted on this site that was flat not true"

Bull. Take this last discussion about the 3" rule as an example. Everything I said about it is fact. I posted links and excerpts from both the DNR website and the 2012 hunting guide. You either choose to not see it, choose to not accept it, or simply don't understand it. Furthermore, nobody says that the research you have posted is "flat not true." It is true, at least in that person's opinion, and to what extent it applies to the discussion. What some people, including me, have a problem with is what you extrapolate from that research, and then opine about it.

"If you do not like my LOL and lmbo or whatever then DO NOT READ THE POST!!"

When you address your post or question directly to me, by name, to not even read it or not respond to a valid question would be rather rude. That's the thing with you hammer, if people respond directly to you, with facts, they are rude. Apparently if they totally ignore you, and don't read what you write, that is somehow respecting you. Sorry, but that is a completely parallel universe to the one I was brought up in. The strange thing is, I don't particularly care how you feel about what I post. The only thing I have any concern about at all, is whether or not anyone else, especially new people, reading your posts will take them as factual and accurate.

"Go read your post...All of them and find out how many times you have used the term "horn porn" You have used it more then just a few sir."

You are welcome to do so, but I have much better things to do than to research my own posts to find out what I have said. I'm not saying that I have never said it, but I know it's not part of my normal lexicon, therefore not something that I would "often reference." This is just another one of those things that you post that is simply not accurate, used for effect, or simply an exaggeration.

KPC

1.)

"Kevin. Dude what is your malfunction here man? I have posted no such misleading information!!! If so what and when and exactly how? Be specific. This way we can work thru it and find out what it is you "believe" I have posted that was misleading. You wrote quote: "it's whether you comprehended it, and whether or not you continue to post incorrect and misleading information. Again, what misleading info have I specifically posted? Also, You brought up the antlerless and antlered topic out of the blue once again when we were discussing the spike rule and my believing it is antiquated and useless and not appropriately written for today's times do to the loopholes. Like I said in my other post you did this before in a similar way."

Are you serious? Just in the last week, there were numerous things that you posted that were simply factually incorrect. Just a couple examples:

Remember when you linked an article that YOU thought showed that APR's had no effect on harvest rates and overall deer numbers? When it was pointed out to you that the article said nothing whatsoever about overall deer numbers, you just kind of blew it off, changed the subject and went on to your next rant.

As to the 3" rule. My issue with that isn't whether ot not it's a good thing, it's not whether or not people call them buck and doe tags, it's whether or not it's an antler restriction or an identifier, and what the reason behind it is. You and others keep calling it an antler restriction, which it is not.

How about the fact that in the the DNR article you linked about the history of antler point restriction in MI, I pointed out that even the author of that article suggested that APR's were a "radical idea" in MI. You questioned me on that, apparently because you didn't believe it, and asked for proof. Whe I pointed that out to you, that was just another thing that you swept under the rug.

How about all the studies that you post from areas other than Michigan, that suggest all the horrendous things that will happen if we don't correct the age structure of our deer herd, but when asked which of those things are currently a problem here in MI, you come up with nothing other than, "it's gonna happen" Well, we've been practicing traditional deer management here in MI for the better part of a century and the only thing that has happened is that there doesn't seem to be enough big bucks for some people.

I could go on and on, but why bother? I suspect you get the point, and I suspect you will deny them all.

______________________________________________________

2.)

"I am dumfounded on how you could think that someone with the harvest claims I have made that you would even post a posting that questions weather I know the difference between a antlerless deer and a antlered deer as it relates to the typical terms "doe permit" or "doe tag" or "buck tag" that I use in my postings. Its more perplexing that you do this after I explained this to you once before a month or so ago."

I am well aware of some of the claims you have made hammer. I know nothing about you other than what you post here. Unfortunately, on internet forums, we base our opinions of people only on the accuracy of the things they post. One's penchant for hyperbole, exaggeration, and misrepresentation comes at a cost to their credibility.

______________________________________________________

3.)

"Kevin I would bet in the past 3 months you have used "horn porn" at least 10 times or more. That's often enough. You are not a constant poster like some here so 10 times is enough to make it appear as fairly regular. Hell everyone here uses that term. Its no big deal is it? I was just pointing out that you use incorrect expressions as well as everyone else. We all know what they mean. I have no interest in looking thru your post. That's for you to do if you feel you are correct. I really don't care to know either way. You understood my point."

So you make an incorrect accusation and it's up to me to do the research to prove my innocence? Really? Ten times or more in the last three months? I'll tell you what. I've been a member of this site for about 13 years now and if you can find 5 instances, in all those 13 years, where I have used the term "horn porn," or even referred to a deer's antlers as horns, I will make a public apology to you. Until then, I will just add it to the list of exaggerations made by you.

______________________________________________________

"As for me saying people are rude. That's not the case and you know it. I only call out rude behavior when people make insulting comments or become disrespectful. You say "That's the thing with you hammer, if people respond directly to you, with facts, they are rude. Apparently if they totally ignore you, and don't read what you write, that is somehow respecting you..... If you see it that way then I really feel for you sir. Like I said I rarely see anyone respond to my post with any verifiable facts. Instead they offer opinion only and back there opinion with more opinion and nothing that can be verified. Then when they try to whack you over the head as wrong and you point out to them that they have no proof of their stance except "opinion" they get a little disrespectful at times.

I have said I have no issue with facts or debate. I take issue only when someone insinuates you are a liar or uneducated or cannot read or write or spell and use incorrect grammar. If those kind of post came out of the blue then it would be much different. But that's not how it works. Its usually after a point was made or a study was posted or an article or some kind of data that the disrespect comes out toward the person they disagree with.

You challenged me a while back on my age and asked me multiple times. You were insinuating that I was not old enough to know what I was posting because I would have been to young to remember it. I explained myself in detail so you would understand exactly what I meant and you still wanted to know my age. The point you were trying to make was obvious to me and anyone I know that reads along with Bowsite. I even gave you a chance to explain yourself so there would be no misunderstanding and you basically confirmed my suspicion of what you were insinuating. You wrote "The only thing I have any concern about at all, is whether or not anyone else, especially new people, reading your posts will take them as factual and accurate"... Really? Well Kevin if it is such concern then point out the incorrect data or research or articles or anything that I have posted that is flat out not true or incorrect or misrepresenting or whatever you believe it may be."

See number 2 and 3 above.

______________________________________________________

In closing hammer, I have no desire to continue this with you. It's a waste of time, and serves no real purpose. I will just continue to post the things that I believe, and continue to point out what I believe are inaccuracies and deceptions when I feel I should.

Of course, you are more than welcome to disagree with me whenever you wish. That's the way this all works.

:>)

KPC

and yet I come back again only to find out there really is'nt a Santa Claus..

:>)

Sorry, couldn't resist.

KPC

No, it is not. An antler restriction protects a certain class of bucks. The 3" spike rule does not protect any bucks, it simply says what tag to use on that particular deer. I hate to keep beating a dead horse hammer, but you are simply wrong. And you keep doubling down on wrong. Calling it an antler restriction is like saying a turkey permit is an antler restriction. After all, you can't tag a buck with one, and bucks have antlers, so it must be an antler restriction. Your argument is that foolish. You can shoot a sub 2" antlered deer with any legal weapon as long as you have a tag for it.

As to managing the deer herd for a "mini ice-age." Come on, let's get real. I'm not even going to waste my time, or anyone elses for that matter.

"You wrote "One's penchant for hyperbole, exaggeration, and misrepresentation comes at a cost to their credibility."...... I am confused.... What is it exactly you are saying with this as it relates to anything I have ever posted?? Please explain."

You need to look no further than your very next paragraph when you said:

"Everyone here uses the term horn porn. If you used it only 5 times in 1000 years then so be it sir. I personally believe its more then that but I have no interest in trying to waste my time just to prove a totally stupid small minded childish point."

First of all, not everyone uses the term horn porn, that is an exaggeration. 5 times in 1000 years is hyperbole. When you said that I "often reference" horn porn, now you back it down and say it's just what you "personally believe," that's misrepresentation. Lastly, if it's a small minded childish point, why would you bring it up to try to use it against me? Are you small minded and childish?

You throw around terms like "verifiable facts" and "proof," yet you play very loosely with both. When you are called on it, you play the victim.

Respect is earned "dude," or is that "sir?" The fact that you have a keyboard and an internet connection doesn't make you (or me) any kind of expert. People base their opinions of us on the totality of our communications. While I don't expect that everyone will agree with my opinions, I don't worry about having to go back and revise what I posted, deny what I posted, or walk back anything I posted.

KPC

Thank you Hammer.... I appreciate your acknowledgement of this even after we have had APR's forced down our throats for years now. No one wants to know the actual results, they just want more Opinion polls from biased administrators

I'm here to see sweet deer pics and read cool hunting stories.. but that's just me..

Case in point.

I never said you don't understand the difference between an antlered and antlerless deer. I said that you apparetnly don't understand the reason for the 3" spike rule, what is does, and what it was implemented for...

Although I could have...

"Also you are DEAD WRONG (CAPITAL LETTERS FOR YOU AS WELL SIR) If a spike is under 3"s its a doe and over 3"s is a buck."

Um, no...a buck is always a buck, and a doe is always a doe. A buck is NEVER a doe, and a doe is NEVER a buck. But a buck CAN be "antlerless", and a doe CAN be "antlered."

:>)

Have a nice evening hammer, I'm going out for dinner.

KPC

You are correct hammer. I "flat do not understand the conversation we were having."

Apparently, you're just too smart for me.

KPC

How about a different one:

"Of course a antlered deer is a buck so the tag covers a buck hence a "buck tag" now of course a antlerless deer is a doe and the tag covers a doe hence doe tag."

I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but now I'm starting to wonder. Based on numerous postings, you still keep saying that an antlerless deer is a doe. The fact is, it may or may not be. Thousands of times every year, antlerless deer are legally killed and tagged, and they are bucks. That is an indisputable, verifiable, fact. (I think those are the kind you are always asking for)

"You cast out accusations about me misleading and denying or walking things back and do so without providing anything but a small tidbit of a posting with no detailed examples of how I supposedly mislead or walked back something or denied something when faced with the facts."

Are you kidding? I have given you numerous examples on this thread alone. Let's just take one.

You stated that a study you linked showed there was no change in overall deer numbers because of APR's. When it was pointed out to you that the article stated no such thing, you subsequently admitted that it said no such thing, and that it was a mistake on your part. That's what "walking something back" means hammer.

Lastly, I was going to move on. I have come to the conclusion that having a discussion with you is fruitless. You keep asking the same questions over and over again. You ask for examples, you are given examples. Even though you get the proof that you ask for, in your own words, in context, you proceed to ask the same question yet again, asking for proof...yet again.

KPC

With that I agree hammer, and we'll leave it at that.

KPC

In all honesty hammer, I didn't think I needed to. First of all, I've aleady answered it a number of times. Second, I would have thought that anyone with even a basic understanding of game laws would already know the answer.

But yes, just for you I will cover it again.

The reason a person without an antlerless tag cannot shoot a buck with less than one 3" antler is....drumroll please...because they don't hold a valid tag for that animal. It is the same reason a person without a turkey permit cannot shoot a turkey. It's the same reason why a person without a bear tag can't shoot a bear. It's the same reason why a person without a elk permit can't shot an elk. Same holds true for ducks, geese, rabbits, squirrels, woodcock, quail, partridge, coyote, bobcat, pheasant, and any other game animal that requires a license to hunt.

That's not to say that anyone the does posess a tag for any of the above species, including a sub 3" antlered deer, can't shoot them. This would of course indicate to anyone with average intelligence, that none of these species are protected, they just require a specific valid license.

This would be in contrast to an antler point restriction, which of course protects all antlered deer that do not have a certain number of points, no matter what license one posesses.

As to your second question:

"I guess it just the a spike rule that is actually an antler restriction right?"

The answer would be no. You could say that, but you would most certainly be wrong.

KPC

Are you really that thick hammer? Can anyone POSSIBLY be that thick? No wonder the DNR has so much trouble getting their points across.

"Its purpose is to protect those that are "under" a certain size."

BINGO!!

The 3" rule DOES NOT protect any antlered deer that are "under" that, it simply says you must tag them with an antlerless tag, or an archery tag, or a combo tag during archery season.

What part of they are "not protected" don't you get?

An antler point restriction protects all deer that fall into a certain category, (such as under a certain amount of points, or under a certain width) no matter what tag you have.

Lastly, the 3" antler identifier is only dumb to those that aren't smart enough to understand what it is, and those you don't understand what it is there for.

Just ask yourself one question hammer, and answer it with a "yes" or a "no."

Is it legal to shoot a deer with antlers that are less than 3" in length?

It it's legal, it's not an antler restriction. If it's illegal, it "protects" that class of deer, and is therefore an antler restriction.

KPC

There is only one tag that CAN'T be used to tag a sub 3" antlered deer, depending on weapon used. DMU is irrelevant.

Let's take a look.

Antlerless tag - can be used to tag a sub 3" deer, any weapon, any county that it is issued for.

Stand alone archery tag - can be used to tag a sub 3" deer with archery equipment, during archey season, any DMU.

Combo tag - either tag (both restricted and non-restricted) can be used to tag a sub 3" deer with archery equipment during archery season, any DMU.

Stand alone firearm tag - can only be used to tag a deer with at least one 3" antler. (unless you are hunting in a DMU that has a bobafide antler point restriction. In that case, the antler point restriction applies.)

Simply put, there is not a DMU in the state of MI that does NOT allow the harvest of a sub 3" antler deer, as long as the hunter is in posession of the proper tag.

Even in DMU's that DO have antler point restrictions, the sub 3" antler deer can still be harvested with the proper tag.

Whick leads me to my final question/statement on this matter.

If the 3" rule was actually an antler restriction, why would you still be able to harvest one, even in DMU's that actually have APRs?

Think about it hammer. Even in Leelanau county, which has had a 3 points on one side APR for a decade now, it is still legal to shoot a sub 3" antler deer with the proper equipment or tag.

That one 3" antler is what makes a deer an "antlered deer" and then, and only then, is it subject to an antler point restriction. If both antlers are under 3", that deer is not an "antelred" deer, and is therefore fair game to anyone with the proper tag.

Thousands of sub 3" antler deer are legally harvested every year in MI. Whether the county has an APR or not is (and will be) irrelevant.

I'm done with this discussion.

KPC

Even that tag CAN be used on a sub 3" antler deer, depending on the DMU you are in. (ironically, the counties where this is legal are counties that actually do have bonafide APRs)

So technically, every tag available in MI can be used on a sub 3" antler deer. It just depends on where you hunt and you weapon of choice.

KPC

That's just dumb.

It's an identifier between antlered and antlerless just like the other guys said.

It had NOTHING to do with protecting small bucks, and as such is not a antler point restrictions. Its an On or Off switch to make sure hunters didn't mistake smaller bucks as does.

Per Ed Langenau to me... circa 1991

"We wouldn't need it if we could always see their junk."

It's not counted as a female, it's counted as antlerless. rrrrrrrrr

Counting them as antlerless deer is not having an adverse affect on the health of the herd, or the overall population totals.

Toe

All the information in the world is useless if you don't understand it, or can't process it.

Biologists with boots in the field observe year round, use harvest data from post card surveys, forest condition wrt browse activity, expressway counts of dead deer on cars, crop damage, car deer accidents, roadkill, pellet counts (back in the day) fawn presence, (one or two or three) with does, and other factors to gage trends up or down in specific locations and then make recommendations to their supervisors at the regional level as to whether antlerless permits can be issued on private or public land, or not at all.

These recommendations get "massaged" before being sent to the desk jockies in Lansing, where they then get "massaged" again by the data crunchers.

From there they go to the administrators who develop "massage" the overall plan that is presented to the NRC.

If the NRC doesn't like the recommendations, they scold the biologists in the field and tell them to come back with recommendations that meet their goals.

The information from the biologist's point of view is manipulated several times before a specific number of antlerless tags are approved.

To my knowledge the biologists do not take buck doe ratio into account when recommending the number of antlerless tags. To my knowledge there is no "healthy" target established. No benchmark. No magic number. No action taken in that regard at all. They manage for population totals as it is in concert with Habitat Carrying Capacity, keeping in mind that hunters would like to see the maximum number of deer during the season that the habitat can safely carry.

"Some"??? Did you not see the FIRST item I listed in the factors the biologists use? Post Card Surveys, hiway observation, check station data. Where do you think the harvest rate data comes from? Sex/Age/Kill ratios are an important tool, agreed. Its not an exact science and they base their decisions on trends, not necessary all empirical data.

Unless you have some other factors that I didn't mention already, I think I got "most" of them already.

Can I assume that because you didn't write a long response, that you concur with my assessment of how the DNR determines the number of Antlerless Permits they issue?

I said I was done with this conversation, and I meant it. I have no intention of debating this with you. I will however answer your question.

In short, any deer license offered in the state of MI can be used to harvest an antlerless deer (which includes bucks that have less than one 3" spike), depending on the season, the weapon you choose, and where you hunt. This includes the regular firearm license, the regular archery license, the combo license, and the antlerless license.

------------------------------------------------------

"#1 Regular combo deer license, Please show me the regulation where it shows a spike under 3#'s is legal to be killed if this "Regular combo deer license" is the only license you carry."

Both tags on a combo license can be used to tag antlerless deer (which includes bucks that have less than one 3" spike) with archery equipment, during the archery seasons, in any DMU in the state. It can also be used to harvest an antlerless deer(which includes bucks that have less than one 3" spike) with a firearm in DMU 487.

------------------------------------------------------

"#2 Firearm deer license, Please show me the regulation where it shows a spike under 3#'s is legal to be killed if this "Firearm deer license" is the only license you carry."

A regular firearm license can be used to tag an antlerless deer (which includes bucks that have less than one 3" spike) in DMU 487

------------------------------------------------------

"#3 Archery deer license, Please show me where it shows a spike under 3#'s is legal to be killed if this "Archery deer license" is the only license you carry."

An regular archery deer license can be used to tag an antlered deer (which includes bucks that have less than one 3" spike) in any DMU in the state.

------------------------------------------------------

It's pretty basic stuff, and all right here:

http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-10363_14518-174074--,00.html

KPC

Ya, I know you reported me. You don't connect the dots on a lot of things.

I don't post much but there are a few things that I'm not much into and don't have much patience for - BSers, whiners, and tattle tales.

It's all at the link I provided in my previous post.

Here is a cut an paste from the DNR website. What exactly are you missing?

------------------------------------------------------

Types of Deer Hunting Licenses Available

Archery Deer Hunting License

It is unlawful to purchase more than one archery deer hunting license. This license entitles residents and nonresidents 10 or older to take one antlered or antlerless deer during the Oct. 1-Nov. 14 or Dec. 1-Jan. 1 open bow and arrow deer season. Exceptions: See Antler Restriction Regulations.

Firearm Deer Hunting License

It is unlawful to purchase more than one firearm deer hunting license. Residents and nonresidents may take a deer with at least one antler three inches or longer during the Nov. 15-30 regular firearm season or during the muzzleloading season. Exceptions: A firearm deer license is valid for an antlerless deer in Deer Management Unit 487. See the 2012 Michigan Antlerless Deer Hunting Digest. Also see Antler Restriction Regulations and Firearm Hunting Rules for Youth Deer Hunters.

Combination Deer Hunting License

Residents and nonresidents are entitled to purchase only one license with two kill tags (regular and restricted) for use during the firearm, muzzleloading and archery seasons. These tags are not valid for the early/late antlerless firearm seasons.

A hunter can use both kill tags in the firearm seasons, both in the archery season or one in each season.

The regular combination kill tag can be used in DMU 487 and all archery seasons to tag either an antlered or antlerless deer. The regular combination kill tag can be used in the firearm seasons to tag a legal (three inches or longer antler) antlered deer except in those areas with antler restrictions as noted in Antler Restriction Regulations.

The restricted combination kill tag can be used in DMU 487 and all archery seasons to tag an antlerless deer or it can be used to tag an antlered deer during either the archery or firearms seasons if the antlered deer has at least one antler with four or more antler points each one inch or longer. It is unlawful to use this tag on a smaller antlered deer regardless of the season or area in which it was taken.

Combination kill tags cannot be used to tag an antlerless deer during the firearm or muzzleloading seasons, except within DMU 487 and during the Youth and 100 Percent Disabled Veteran Firearm Deer Hunt. See the 2012 Michigan Antlerless Deer Hunting Digest. Exception: See Tagging Option for Antlerless Deer Hunters.

Antlerless Deer Hunting License

This license entitles residents and nonresidents 10 and older to take an antlerless deer or a deer with antlers less than three inches in length within the DMU specified on the license. Hunters may apply for a private-land OR public-land antlerless deer license from July 15-Aug. 15. An application is recommended for public-land antlerless deer hunting or private-land hunting in DMUs where license availability is relatively limited. A public-land antlerless deer license is required to hunt antlerless deer on Commercial Forest land. In some DMUs, private-land antlerless deer licenses are only available over the counter beginning Sept. 10. For youth hunting opportunities see Rules for Young Hunters and Firearm Hunting Rules for Youth Hunters. For additional details on antlerless deer hunting, see the 2012 Michigan Antlerless Deer Hunting Digest.

------------------------------------------------------

KPC

- Eoin Colfer, Artemis Fowl

-Me

Not to mention, what you think you know is often grossly overestimated.

Yes it is in the regs I posted hammer. It is the part in brackets.

------------------------------------------------------

Firearm Deer Hunting License

It is unlawful to purchase more than one firearm deer hunting license. Residents and nonresidents may take a deer with at least one antler three inches or longer during the Nov. 15-30 regular firearm season or during the muzzleloading season.

[Exceptions: A firearm deer license is valid for an antlerless deer in Deer Management Unit 487.]

See the 2012 Michigan Antlerless Deer Hunting Digest. Also see Antler Restriction Regulations and Firearm Hunting Rules for Youth Deer Hunters.

------------------------------------------------------

There is not a tag available in MI that you cannot take a sub 3" antlered deer with, depending on the weapon, season, and DMU.

KPC

There is only one way to see the regs hammer, the way they are written. That is the way I described them by answering your question, the way you asked it.

I'm sorry but I can't answer based on what I think you might have meant, what you think you might have read, or what you think I might have meant. I can only answer your question as written.

The regs are the regs and are exactly as I have described them.

"You threw me off for a while by throwing the DMU thing in there when I had asked basically (other) then select DMU's show me how you can kill a sub 3" spike with all those licenses."

You never said, or even suggested "other than select DMU's". I stated very clearly, a number of times, that based on where you hunt, the season you are in, and the weapon you choose, every tag available in MI can be used to harvest a sub 3" antlered deer. That's not partially or kinda correct. It is correct.

Not sure what else to say, therefore I won't.

KPC

PS: This is what I was referring to when I said that you have a tendency to make what you are absolutely convinced are factual statements, and then have to "walk them back."

It was by me a number of days ago.

I did not, nor will I read your novella. Why should I or anyone else? You will end up denying you said it anyway.

Good luck with your "research."

KPC

Thank you hammer. That would indeed be nice.

KPC

-Me

As far as what's on my mind, I think you have proven to be somewhat of a useful tool for the pro apr group. I'm sure they like it when you regurgitate many of their talking points.

Unfortunately, you've also proven that you don't really understand much of what you read. That's been illustrated by a number of people in this thread alone.

So even though I was partially joking, I think my quote is pretty spot on.

The fact that you say you have no desire to speak with me, {even though you specifically asked me to PM you} is completely irrelevant to whether or not I post, and who's posts I decide to respond to.

Unless maybe you and hammer go on tour together.

You could call yourselves Hardy and Hardy.

This is the beauty of originality.... some people will just put it out there, and some who read it will like it and other's won't. If an author stopped to worry about whether "everybody" would like it, they would fail in two ways. He would never write anything honest, and he would never write anything at all.

Tooner "got" what I was saying, but it turned you off. That's okay. I accept your opinion as one that you hold.

"If you never try, you fail before you start."

-Me (although I am sure others have said similar stuff)

"To Mr. Tooner's grandson, please give control back to your grandaddy......it makes him look bad when a 5 year old posts in his name. "

Ya See AS, even you can try to be original, but well, I've seen this approach before; its a step up from "your mother wears Army boots" maybe two steps up. :)

Let it out, self reflection is good.

Unfortunately, the yolk is on you.

You gotta step outside the box from time to time.

""I am blown away by the ideology of the 20th century – for the better and for the worse – such that i am sickened and satiated to the same degree. my only reflection is that i am now aware of the polarity of my condition. my departure from the blissful ignorance is what is troubling, not the wild turbulence of my psyche."

Did you write that? What does it mean? It sounds really interesting. What is the reference context?