Is the 6-Day tradition a thing of the past?

[Rusty]

That quote from the division is classic wanting private land owners to impose restrictions.

 

You are misinterpreting what they are saying.  F&W is not in favor of APRs, they implement them to appease the hunting groups that are badgering them.  Their statement about private land owners means that if a person wants APRs then they should practice it on their own land, they are not saying that they want all private land owners to do it.  

[Lunatic]

I don't believe the APR is the answer. Limit the number of bucks taken each year and the situation would improve. Give everyone 1 or 2 bucks for the year and guys would get very selective. The way it is now, hunters just drop any size buck at the end of each season because in a day or two they get a new tag. This cycle repeats itself way too many time with the multiple seasons in this state. If you had one tag for the season you would not be shooting a 3 point on one side 1.5 YO buck.   

[BHC]

Pike County, PA isn't farm country, it's hills, mountains with deep woods.....over time AR has worked Mallard1100 pictures is one of 100os of hunters with proof....any area without AR can have good racks but they are far between.... backyard hunting in places like Morristown, Mendham, Bernardsville, and many other urban areas have big bucks cause low hunting pressure, and fertilizer lawns. Huge bucks that would rival the midwest in very urban areas of Bergen County, Rahway, all other places, cause of ZERO HUNTING with fertilizer lawns, bird feeders, and deer being hand feed

 

PA experts know what needed to be done, and it worked....many hunters didn't liked it and bitched, now they look on their walls at the trophy the took and they respect AR now

[Lunatic]

No APR where this buck was taken.  Does it prove anything now?      

 

bow buck copy.jpg

 

 

You and I know it does not. Individual hunter's world is way too small for evaluation of a state or zone wide  APR program, or absence of.

 

BTW nice buck!!

How old?

Edited December 8, 2017 by Lunatic

[hammer4reel]

While apr didnt have anything to do with those few nj bucks , the only reason they got t h at big is they werent shot as a 1 1/2 year old.

 

But go to any butcher or taxidermist in pa and ask them if apr hasnt changed the quality of pa bucks taken.

 

You guys wanba focus on worst case scenario not on what can happen .

All those better gene bucks that dont get shot as a 1 1/2 year old also get to pass on the genes another year.

And more than likely the scenario that rusty posted about saving 700 bucks to only gain 100 i think shows with age, the deer being smarter had to be hunted harder, they didnt just vanish.

They just didnt get harvested

[Roon]

Winter bow OK? Guns bad? Most does are pregnant by then but killing them with a bow is better? So confused. Or is it just a case of I don't like it so you should not be doing it type of thinking.

Here's the thing killing the doe that could become pregnant causes no stress Killing or chasing the doe that is almost at the end of full term of pregnancy really not that good for the fawn.

But Hey they don't want a healthy productive heard they want all of them dead

[Rusty]

BTW nice buck!!

How old?

 

I didn't check the age but my guess would be 4.5.  He was a clean 120" 8 pointer the year before and looked like a classic 3.5 then.  We could have shot him a number of times the year before but my buddy and I decided to let him go in the hopes that he would make it another year.  Fortunately he did.   

[Lunatic]

While apr didnt have anything to do with those few nj bucks , the only reason they got t h at big is they werent shot as a 1 1/2 year old.

 

But go to any butcher or taxidermist in pa and ask them if apr hasnt changed the quality of pa bucks taken.

 

You guys wanba focus on worst case scenario not on what can happen .

All those better gene bucks that dont get shot as a 1 1/2 year old also get to pass on the genes another year.

And more than likely the scenario that rusty posted about saving 700 bucks to only gain 100 i think shows with age, the deer being smarter had to be hunted harder, they didnt just vanish.

They just didnt get harvested

 

 

You missed the entire point of the anti-APR argument  The argument is the APR eliminates the genetically superior bucks so they don't get to pass their genes.

[Lunatic]

Here's the thing killing the doe that could become pregnant causes no stress Killing or chasing the doe that is almost at the end of full term of pregnancy really not that good for the fawn.

But Hey they don't want a healthy productive heard they want all of them dead

 

Killing of a doe "that could become pregnant" and killing of a pregnant do produces the same, identical result. You kill her and all of her future offspring.   

[hammer4reel]

You missed the entire point of the anti-APR argument  The argument is the APR eliminates the genetically superior bucks so they don't get to pass their genes.

And i say thats BS

You cant tell what genes any of the 1 1/2 year old bucks were from.

You can also have a buck that has 8 points in his first year never get any better except for mass in his next 4 years,

 

Yet you could have a buck thats only a fork horn explode into a giant 2 years later.

[Lunatic]

And i say thats BS

You cant tell what genes any of the 1 1/2 year old bucks were from.

You can also have a buck that has 8 points in his first year never get any better except for mass in his next 4 years,

 

Yet you could have a buck thats only a fork horn explode into a giant 2 years later.

 

 

I can't argue with you on this one because I am not convince either way. I think limiting the number of bucks/ hunter would take care of the problem we have in this state.

[DV1]

 

The following is from that report DV1.  This is not a good thing if you ask me.   

 

"On average, each year we save 712 yearling bucks from harvest, and gain 30 2.5 year old bucks and 84 3.5+ year old bucks. In other words, we harvest 712 less yearling bucks but gain only 114 older age class bucks as a result of APR.  That means that 84% of the yearlings saved from harvest every year do not show up in the harvest as older age class bucks. Another way of putting it is that for every 6.25 yearlings saved from harvest, we get 1 older age class buck in the harvest. Therefore, 598 yearling bucks saved from harvest in the south APR zones do not show up in the harvest as older age class bucks every year."   

 

This illustrates the problem I have with believing anything from the Division regarding deer management any longer. This is a perfect example of how people who were formerly credible biologists have become nothing more than politicians, and spin, twist and outright lie to get their way. I first saw it when Larry came to a UBNJ Council meeting and stressed to the Council that bow hunting was quickly dying in NJ, and to prove it gave a stat that there were less than 19,000 bow hunters in NJ in 2009. Yet the numbers from the Division...his own agency...were over 35,000 bow hunters. He conveniently left off senior bow licenses sold and all around sportsman licenses sold to scare Council members into thinking bow hunting would die off without crossbow full inclusion. 

 

The crossbow debate has been settled but the misleading and misrepresentation tactics by Division employees didn't stop there. I saw it at the QDM forum they held leading to the expansion of APR zones when this report came out. This "presentation" of the APR study data shows it again. Here's how. Here is a quote in red from the study regarding Rusty's quoted section: 

 

"For all south APR zones, the combined average harvest before APR was 1,876 bucks per year. After the institution of APR, the combined average harvest was 1,289 bucks per year (Figure 1). This is a 31% decline in the antlered harvest due to APR."

 

They attribute the entire decrease in harvest to APR, completely ignoring the fact that the entire deer herd was cut nearly in half, so there were only half as many deer available at the end of the study period as there were at the beginning. For their assessment to be true, they want us to believe that the same number of yearling bucks would be harvested each year from a herd of 111,000 deer as was harvested each year from  herd of 200,000 deer. 

 

At the beginning of the study period, the deer population in NJ was estimated at approximately 200,000 animals. At the end of the study period, it was approximately 111,000 animals. However, the stat they give for the average of 712 yearling bucks saved and 598 that don't show up, was from a deer population of approximately 200,000 animals. At the end of the study period, the population was nearly cut in half so statistically, there would not have been the same number of yearling bucks available to be harvested, it should be almost half that number. They lead us to believe the same number of yearling bucks would be harvested at the end of the study with only half as many deer available. The average of 712 saved, and 598 that don't show up, would only be accurate if the the population was constant. It wasn't, it was cut in half. The number of yearling bucks killed, and saved, would decrease proportionately to the population as it decreased. They don't account for that (in my view intentionally), to inflate the numbers and make APR's look like a fruitless effort. 

 

Since that's out of the way, lets look at the actual results. Again, from the study:

 

Now let’s look at each age class harvest for all the APR zones. These numbers are all summarized in Table 1.

The average yearling harvest pre-APR was 1,325 bucks per year. (from approximately 200k deer) The post-APR average yearling harvest is 613 bucks per year for all the south APR zones. (from approximately 111k deer)

The average 2.5 year old harvest pre-APR was 456 bucks per year;(from approximately 200k deer) the post-APR average harvest of 2.5 year olds is 486 bucks per year. (from approximately 111k deer)

The average 3.5+ year old harvest pre-APR was 95 bucks per year.(from approximately 200k deer)The post-APR average harvest is 179 bucks per year. (from approximately 111k deer)

 

Was there a decrease in the number of yearling bucks harvested? ...absolutely, as is intended by APR's, so that right there proves the first goal of the program was a success: protecting more yearling bucks.

Was there an increase in older age class bucks?...absolutely, which proves the next goal of the program was a success. There were only modest gains of 2.5 yr olds harvested, however, the number of 3.5 yr olds almost doubled from 95 to 179, and remember, this is all happening at a time when the total number of deer available in the herd is being cut in half. 

 

Was it a perfect success with a 1 for 1 gain in yearlings saved to older bucks killed, no, and it never will be. A percentage of those saved, just like all the other deer in the herd, are susceptible to predators, disease (we had several EHD outbreaks during the study period here) and vehicles, but to call it a failure...when the number of 3.5 year old bucks killed almost doubled during a time of drastic herd reduction, when the entire herd was nearly cut in half. I don't know how any objective person can call that a failure.

Edited December 8, 2017 by DV1

[Roon]

Killing of a doe "that could become pregnant" and killing of a pregnant do produces the same, identical result. You kill her and all of her future offspring.

 

This is known, it's also known for a female to be in high stress situations during pregnancy is not good for off spring.

Dead is dead I get that, I was referring to the survivors that do nothing but a lot of running when hunted like rabbits till the end of February.

[Rusty]

 I was referring to the survivors that do nothing but a lot of running when hunted like rabbits till the end of February.

 

Yeah that kind of added stress, late into the winter, is not a good thing.