|
Sponsored By... Best Sharpening Stones New Providence, NJ (866) 286-2049 - info@bestsharpeningstones.com http://www.bestsharpeningstones.com |
|
|
| Home PMs Upload New Posts |
| Posted: 15 Jul 2007 5:53 AM | ||
|
Registered User |
Posts: 2627 Monster Buck:  Join Date: Dec 2005 |
|
APRs are finally removed from zone 6, it's about time!! 
|
||
| Posted: 15 Jul 2007 6:08 AM | ||
|
Administrator, Sponsor |
Posts: 11878 Addicted to NJH:  Join Date: Feb 2005 |
|
Actually, I kind of like APR for Zone 6. Oh well... __________________ |
||
| Posted: 15 Jul 2007 6:14 AM | ||
|
Registered User |
Posts: 4069 Monster Buck: Join Date: May 2006 |
|
I view the point restrictions as a good thing!
It gives the bucks a chance to mature. and if it's just meat that the hunter is after...There are plenty of Does around. Just my 2 cents __________________ <- <- <- <- ~ <- <- <- <-
I'd rather be working.........a Bird!  |
||
| Posted: 15 Jul 2007 6:17 AM | ||
|
Registered User Currently Offline |
Posts: 618 Typical:  Join Date: Jun 2007 |
|
i wish it was a state wide law. in some zones want to see a 4 on one side. __________________ united bowhunters of nj
nj fur harvesters monroeville |
||
| Posted: 15 Jul 2007 6:19 AM | ||
|
Registered User, Sponsor |
Posts: 4612 Monster Buck: Join Date: Jul 2005 |
|
Quote:
I view the point restrictions as a good thing! It gives the bucks a chance to mature. and if it's just meat that the hunter is after...There are plenty of Does around. Just my 2 cents I tend to agree, but according to the F&G biologists it hasn't made much of a diifference. There are lots of 1.5 year old deer that are legal under 3 point APR. If they really wanted it to be effective the APR would need to be 4 or 5 points. __________________ Gun control is being able to hit your target
MOLON LABE WWRD Member: NRA,ANJRPC,UBNJ,SFFC,DU |
||
| Posted: 15 Jul 2007 7:35 AM | ||
|
Warden, Sponsor |
Posts: 6010 Addicted to NJH: Join Date: Oct 2006 |
|
Quote:
4 on one side. Some of the western zones of PA enforce this. The rest of PA is 3 or more on one side. __________________ |
||
| Posted: 15 Jul 2007 7:43 AM | ||
|
Registered User |
Posts: 2627 Monster Buck: Join Date: Dec 2005 |
|
|
The idea of APRs is great on paper but in reality it has proven not to work. It accomplishes 2 things:
1. It greatly increases the illegal kill of yearling bucks. 2. It removes the best genetics from the herd because yearling bucks with the best genes have 3+ points on a side when they are 1.5 years old and are killed before they mature, leaving the inferior bucks to do the breeding. APRs have been around a long time and most states that tried them in the past have stopped the practice because they did not work. |
||
| Posted: 15 Jul 2007 7:49 AM | ||
|
Registered User |
Posts: 2627 Monster Buck: Join Date: Dec 2005 |
|
|
Quote:
I kind of like APR for Zone 6. We always had a buck or 2 in the 120-150 class range running around before APRs in zone 6. I have not seen a buck bigger than 90" in the past 2 years. Also, it drives me nuts when a new hunter that has never taken a deer is forced to pass up a spike or 4 pointer. I was thrilled to take those bucks when I was a kid. |
||
| Posted: 15 Jul 2007 7:55 AM | ||
|
|
Warden, Sponsor |
Posts: 6010 Addicted to NJH: Join Date: Oct 2006 |
|
Quote:
Also, it drives me nuts when a new hunter that has never taken a deer is forced to pass up a spike or 4 pointer. Fortunately, a youth (under 18) can harvest a buck with an antler 3" or more on one side in PA. But I agree with you APR. I don't like them. I haven't put my time in NJ in some years, but we used to see alot of bucks in PA. Now your lucky if you even see a buck. This year will be the fifth year of APR in PA, I believe. Dr. Alt said it would take that long before you would see positive results, so we'll see this coming season. __________________ |
||
| Posted: 15 Jul 2007 8:19 AM Last Edited By: 870 | ||
|
Registered User |
Posts: 2627 Monster Buck: Join Date: Dec 2005 |
|
|
Quote:
Dr. Alt said it would take that long before you would see positive results 6 states that dropped APRs found that the illegal kill rate was 40-100% of their legal harvest. That is, for every 100 legally killed deer there were 40 to 100 deer killed and left to rot because they had too few points. During gun season it is too often; Shoot first and count points later. I don't know if Dr. Alt will see the results that he is hoping for. |
||
| Posted: 15 Jul 2007 8:26 AM | ||
|
Registered User, Sponsor Currently Offline |
Posts: 2623 Monster Buck: Join Date: Sep 2005 |
|
I wish point restriction was a state wide thing myself. I would love it if the restriction went as far as being as wide as the ears.... __________________ I just want to Hunt...
|
||
| Posted: 15 Jul 2007 8:28 AM | ||
|
Registered User |
Posts: 2627 Monster Buck: Join Date: Dec 2005 |
|
|
Quote:
I wish point restriction was a state wide thing myself. To increase the illegal kill rate and reduce the genetics of the herd?? 
|
||
| Posted: 15 Jul 2007 8:38 AM | ||
|
Registered User Currently Offline |
Posts: 2456 Non Typical:  Join Date: Mar 2005 |
|
Quote:
2. It removes the best genetics from the herd because yearling bucks with the best genes have 3+ points on a side when they are 1.5 years old and are killed before they mature, leaving the inferior bucks to do the breeding. This theory is nothing more than an old wives tale. Numerous scientific studies have proven this is not the case. While there will always be those that disagree, virtually all of the top whitetail biologists all concede that there is no way to determine the genetic qulities of a deer as they relate to antler growth at the age of 1.5yrs old. JC |
||
| Posted: 15 Jul 2007 8:42 AM | ||
|
|
Warden, Sponsor |
Posts: 6010 Addicted to NJH: Join Date: Oct 2006 |
|
Quote:
I don't know if Dr. Alt will see the results that he is hoping for. He's long gone now and No he won't see the results he was looking for. First off, there are no check stations in PA. It's a free for all come hunting season. I would like to hunt NJ this year and have the choice of taking a buck or not. Regardless of the size of it. I live in Zone 6 now and that's where I plan to hunt. Quote:
left to rot because they had too few points. I saw one of these in Allamuchy.  __________________ |
||
| Posted: 15 Jul 2007 8:49 AM | ||
|
Registered User, Sponsor Currently Offline |
Posts: 3110 Monster Buck: Join Date: Feb 2005 |
|
Quote:
The idea of APRs is great on paper but in reality it has proven not to work. It accomplishes 2 things: 1. It greatly increases the illegal kill of yearling bucks. 2. It removes the best genetics from the herd because yearling bucks with the best genes have 3+ points on a side when they are 1.5 years old and are killed before they mature, leaving the inferior bucks to do the breeding. APRs have been around a long time and most states that tried them in the past have stopped the practice because they did not work. I agree with this for the most part. Going to a one buck rule (per weapon) would do much more to protect bucks than does antler point restrictions, but still has problems in NJ. The reason that wouldn't be as effective in NJ as it is in other states is because we have been conditioned to think we are entitled to kill alot of bucks here in NJ. If the State all of the sudden went to a one or two buck limit, there would be alot of angry hunters, and they would kill bucks and just not tag them out of a sense of entitlement... that kind of stuff happens now and we are allowed to kill six bucks, which obviously still isn't enough for some people. Face it, we all know alot of guys who think it costs too much to hunt here now, and if you reduce the number of bucks allowable, that would only inflame that feeling. Antler point restrictions in New Jersey really do nothing to protect bucks, and even in the SW part of the state, have had little to no effect on ensuring more mature bucks remain in the herd. If it is any better than it was 10 years ago (and many people don't think it is, but in fact worse as far as mature deer in the herd) it's because of hunter attitudes among some people changing and passing young bucks...not spikes and four-pointers, but young bucks, including six and eight-pointers. More hunters are able to identify yearlings and decide to pass them now as opposed to 10 years ago. Not everyone does it, but there has been an attitude shift among some hunters, usually the more dedicated ones who are more apt to have success anyway. If there is any data that suggests there are more mature bucks being taken in the SW zones that have APR, I would think it's from that factor rather than APR's. Many of our yearlings down here have 6, 8 and sometimes 10 points anyway. All APR's do is force hunters to leave the smallest of the young bucks, and target the best of the young bucks for removal. Deer in NJ are not going to live much beyond 3.5 yrs old, and a 1.5 yr old 8-pointer has a better chance of being a good buck at 3.5 than does and spike or 3-pointer at the same age. Yes, there is research that shows spikes and forkies can catch up to their brothers of the same age with better antlers, but that doesn't happen until they hit 4.5, sometimes, or usually 5.5 yrs old, and most deer don't make it that long in New Jersey...point restrictions or not. One good thing from establishing a point restriction regulation is that it has forced most hunters to take a closer look at the deer they are about to shoot, and some of those hunters have taken the next step and learned to tell how old the deer is, not just how many points it has. So APR's have helped promote the attitude of protecting young bucks, even if the idea of protecting only spikes and forkies is flawed. Waiting for a more mature buck is not for everyone. No one should feel they have to conform to the same standards of what constitutes a trophy as what me or someone else does, and hunters should not be scolded for shooting a young buck...but they shouldn't get another tag to shoot the next one that comes down the trail either. If you get rid of the APR's and reduce the buck tags, you can let people shoot what they want and make the not-concerned-about-antlers crowd happy. And since they will be done with their spike and out of the woods, leaving those 1.5 yr old 8-pointers to grow up, that will make the QDM guys happy. We would still have the problem with illegal kills but that entitlement attitude can change just like the attitude towards killing young bucks is changing. |
||
| Posted: 15 Jul 2007 9:01 AM | ||
|
|
Registered User, Sponsor Currently Offline |
Posts: 3110 Monster Buck: Join Date: Feb 2005 |
|
Quote:
This theory is nothing more than an old wives tale. Numerous scientific studies have proven this is not the case. While there will always be those that disagree, virtually all of the top whitetail biologists all concede that there is no way to determine the genetic qulities of a deer as they relate to antler growth at the age of 1.5yrs old. Actually, at a meeting of the Southeast Deer Study Group a few years ago, they pretty much confirmed that this was happening under some circumstances, and named it "High-Grading". This "Group" did include many of the country's top whitetail biologists and deer managers. Granted, it doesn't always happen, but where they discovered High-Grading could be a problem was in the more heavily hunted areas, with a good bit of hunting pressure...much like New Jersey. Point restrictions can work on lightly hunted, large land-holdings, and the managers of those places would probably dismiss High-Grading as you have, but we are not dealing with lightly hunted, large land-holdings in New Jersey, so studies from those places probably aren't as applicable to our situation as are those studies from the places with heavy pressure and APR's, which is where the term High-Grading was coined. It doesn't always happen, but it's not a myth either and has been documented. At least it was as recent as two years ago...if you are aware of more recent information, I'd like to read it to catch up too. 
|
||
| Posted: 15 Jul 2007 9:02 AM | ||
|
Registered User Currently Offline |
Posts: 576 Typical: Join Date: Dec 2005 |
|
Quote:
Waiting for a more mature buck is not for everyone. No one should feel they have to conform to the same standards of what constitutes a trophy as what me or someone else does, and hunters should not be scolded for shooting a young buck...but they shouldn't get another tag to shoot the next one that comes down the trail either. If you get rid of the APR's and reduce the buck tags, you can let people shoot what they want and make the not-concerned-about-antlers crowd happy. And since they will be done with their spike and out of the woods, leaving those 1.5 yr old 8-pointers to grow up, that will make the QDM guys happy This is perhaps the most intelligent thing I have ever read on here. __________________ To kill a big buck, you're going to have to shoot a big buck
|
||
| Posted: 15 Jul 2007 9:13 AM | ||
|
Registered User |
Posts: 2627 Monster Buck: Join Date: Dec 2005 |
|
|
Quote:
Waiting for a more mature buck is not for everyone. No one should feel they have to conform to the same standards of what constitutes a trophy as what me or someone else does, and hunters should not be scolded for shooting a young buck...but they shouldn't get another tag to shoot the next one that comes down the trail either. If you get rid of the APR's and reduce the buck tags, you can let people shoot what they want and make the not-concerned-about-antlers crowd happy. And since they will be done with their spike and out of the woods, leaving those 1.5 yr old 8-pointers to grow up, that will make the QDM guys happy. Quote:
This is perhaps the most intelligent thing I have ever read on here. Couldn't agree more!!
You 2 should run for office!!
|
||
| Posted: 15 Jul 2007 9:25 AM | ||
|
Registered User, Sponsor Currently Offline |
Posts: 2684 Monster Buck: Join Date: Feb 2005 |
|
Quote:
i wish it was a state wide law. in some zones want to see a 4 on one side. Agreed! __________________ "Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." - John Quincy Adams
|
||
| Posted: 15 Jul 2007 9:27 AM | ||
|
Registered User Currently Offline |
Posts: 966 Typical: Join Date: Mar 2006 |
|
i have been hunting some 20yrs now. i primarily hunt zone 6. since inception of apr i have seen more and bigger bucks with both my eyes and trailcams. i have no problem with people taking an 18month old 5 point. this type of animal has no value to me i know if i did take it i would say to myself why did i do that. i get more of thrill out of taking a 2.5 or better, whether it is buck or doe. anyone here on this site that has min of 5 years of seeing bucks in the field can tell if they are looking at a 1.5 year old 8 point or a 2.5 year old 6 point. and if the animal looks vastly bigger then what your usually seeing you can bet its a keeper of 3.5 or better. 870 you say apr did not work i believe it did and would have. the problem i see is so many people are to trigger happy with bow and gun and if it meets min of those 3 points reguardless of body size and obvious maturity they shoot it anyway. all i am saying is as we all get older we should show some restraint when it comes to taking an animal to take time and judge it evaluate it. __________________ Hunting....Its All About The Gear!!!!!
|
||
| Posted: 15 Jul 2007 9:30 AM | ||
|
Registered User, Sponsor Currently Offline |
Posts: 2129 Non Typical: Join Date: Mar 2005 |
|
Quote:
i wish it was a state wide law. in some zones want to see a 4 on one side. I Agree
|
||
| Posted: 15 Jul 2007 9:30 AM Last Edited By: jcchartboy | ||
|
|
Registered User Currently Offline |
Posts: 2456 Non Typical: Join Date: Mar 2005 |
|
Quote:
Actually, at a meeting of the Southeast Deer Study Group a few years ago, they pretty much confirmed that this was happening under some circumstances, and named it "High-Grading". Sorry NJ, You are mixing apples and oranges here...(as is evidenced by the fact that you needed to state "some circustances" ....In other words they "can" be related, but usually are not...
"High Grading", as you refered to is by definition the removal of the very largest deer in the herd...(The 3-4-5 year old classes with the largest racks). By definition, removal of the 1.5yr old class deer is contra to pracctices that result in high grading....more importantly, due to the fact that the genetical potential of a buck at 1.5yrs of age is impossible to determine, by definition killing a 1.5yd old buck can not possibly be high grading...very simply explained...if you don't even know what the bucks genetical potential is, how could a hunter possibly be selectively grading them based on long term antler growth potential..?... 
JC |
||
| Posted: 15 Jul 2007 10:00 AM | ||
|
Registered User Currently Offline |
Posts: 1282 Non Typical: Join Date: Oct 2006 |
| I like the 3 on one side rule. I shot my first buck last year which was a nice 8. I passed on a ton of smaller bucks. We who hunt together inforce our own rules on the property we hunt, because we want the bucks to get bigger. Don't get me wrong, we all love to eat venison, but if it's a hunt for just meat we have plenty of opportunities to shoot a doe everynight. | ||
| Posted: 15 Jul 2007 2:09 PM Last Edited By: NJ_Bowhntr | ||
|
|
Registered User, Sponsor Currently Offline |
Posts: 3110 Monster Buck: Join Date: Feb 2005 |
|
Quote:
Sorry NJ, You are mixing apples and oranges here...(as is evidenced by the fact that you needed to state "some circustances"....In other words they "can" be related, but usually are not... I don't think it's mixing apples and oranges, just that under certain conditions, antler restrictions can result in high-grading. Quote:
"High Grading", as you refered to is by definition the removal of the very largest deer in the herd...(The 3-4-5 year old classes with the largest racks). By definition, removal of the 1.5yr old class deer is contra to pracctices that result in high grading... I'll admit, I'm no biologist and am only going by what I've read. Every time I've read anything where the term high-grading was used, it referred to what I stated above. That includes the notes from the Southeast Deer Study Group meetings, the information in the Whitetail Institute of North America's publication Whitetail News and the study by Dr. Steven Desmarais of Mississippi State University that was used as an example. Also, the magazine Deer and Deer Hunting had a pretty good article on it by Charles Alsheimer. The article was not unbaised because Charles is a big fan of APR's and to have him write it would be like me writing about crossbows in archery season...not going to be unbaised, but in it, he defines High-Grading as "...place[ing] too much pressure on the best-developed yearlings and 2.5 year olds, thus letting inferior bucks do most of the breeding". That was in the June 2003 issue, on page 24. I've looked for a concrete defintion but haven't found anything other than what I posted. I'm still looking...do you mind telling me where you read the one you posted? |
||
| Posted: 15 Jul 2007 3:13 PM Last Edited By: jcchartboy | ||
|
|
Registered User Currently Offline |
Posts: 2456 Non Typical: Join Date: Mar 2005 |
|
Quote:
I'm no biologist and am only going by what I've read. Every time I've read anything where the term high-grading was used, it referred to what I stated above NJ, The term high grading term is a pejorarive term that was originally used in the forestry, mining, and fishing related industries to describe selectively harvesting the highest quality goods. As it relates to genetics, it refers to the harvesting of animals that display specific desirable genetic charectoristics, (in this case antler growth). While it is possible to apply this term to any subset of the population, (age classes for example), the term is most properly used to refer to the entire population being discussed, (a specific zone in our case). (In the case it is used to desribe a subset of the population the description of the activity would be "high grading-subset", or in the case it seems you are trying to descibe "high-grading of 1.5yr old bucks". In order to "high grade" a population it is therefore necessary to be able to identify, and effeciently for, each indiviual within the sample based on the genetic condition being selected for. If one can not effectively select for the genetic trait, (for example a doe's ability to positively contribute here genes to a large antlered buck, which can not be detected visually), then High-Grading is unlikely to occur unless the entire population is routinely eliminated based any signs of the presence of the selected genetic trait. (In other words if almost every animal that remotely shows the desired trait is always killed). So how does this fit into the story...? 1). High grading is properly used to descibed the removal of the best genes from the population. (However, it can alternativley be used for a subset of a population in which case the subset should be identified in the desciption of the term high-grading. ie (High Grading of does based on fawning rates) 2). High grading can not occur unless the genetic trait being selected for can be observed by those doing the harvest. 3. In a population where a "normal" amount of the population is removed based on genetic selection High Grading is unlikely to have a strong effect on the gene pool. 4. In a population where an "extreme" amount of the population is removed based on any display of genetic trait regardless of the "quality" of that trait, "High Grading", (which of course is no longer high grading) is likely to have a greater effect on the overall gene pool. However, when this occurs it is debatable whether this practice is actually a form of high grading as many of the individuals removed from the sample are no longer of "high" genetic quality. When the population is genetically harvested in this manner the proper reference would simply be genetic selection. In summation, it is possible to "high grade 1.5yr old bucks" so extensively that it could feasible effect the average antler growth of the entire population over time. This however would be the result of overharvest of that subset of the population to the point where "high grading" was no longer occuring. At this point one would properly describe the activity simply as "overharvesting of the subset population". (In other words, the issue at hand is the numbers being harvested based on the selection criteria, not the selection criteria itself.) So, in the end, the apples and the oranges that were being discussed included, overharvesting, high grading of 1.5yr old bucks, high grading of all bucks, and finally the physical display of genetic potential of 1.5yr old bucks... It seems to me the only apple in that bunch as it relates to this discussion of hunting in zone 6 is the possible overharvesting of 1.5yr old bucks, a fact that has nothing to do with the ability to genetically select for future antler growth based on a bucks rack size at age 1.5. (The original topic that I responded to...) JC |
||
| Posted: 15 Jul 2007 3:37 PM Last Edited By: jcchartboy | ||
|
|
Registered User Currently Offline |
Posts: 2456 Non Typical: Join Date: Mar 2005 |
|
NJ,
In support of the information above, here is the summation of the research by Demarais that you referenced above. (Note that he includes the possiblity that AR's can have a negative effect on antler size, this is due to the explanation he gives (match what I provided above) concerning overharvesting of the subset.. )
JC Quote:
In summary, antler characteristics can be used effectively to protect young bucks from harvest. However, application of selective-harvest criteria that protect smaller-antlered yearling bucks may not yield similar results across a large management unit and may even reduce the potential for antler size at older ages. |
||
| Posted: 15 Jul 2007 4:24 PM | ||
|
|
Registered User, Sponsor Currently Offline |
Posts: 3110 Monster Buck: Join Date: Feb 2005 |
|
Quote:
Quote: In summary, antler characteristics can be used effectively to protect young bucks from harvest. However, application of selective-harvest criteria that protect smaller-antlered yearling bucks may not yield similar results across a large management unit and may even reduce the potential for antler size at older ages. Sounds pretty much like what I posted,  and it's what biologists and deer managers have been calling high-grading. Maybe you should forward them your post above and straighten them out on the proper use of the term. 
Thanks for the info. |
||
| Posted: 15 Jul 2007 4:52 PM Last Edited By: jcchartboy | ||
|
|
Registered User Currently Offline |
Posts: 2456 Non Typical: Join Date: Mar 2005 |
|
Quote:
Maybe you should forward them your post above and straighten them out on the proper use of the term. NJ, I would...but, I don't need to. Mr Demarais uses the term properly throughout his article. In fact I think the point that may have mislead you, was the fact that the article was titled, "Can protecting young bucks lead to high grading". (Notice the cause and effect relationship, his article is about a possible cause, not an effect, as you are implying) Of course, his summary indicates it is does not, except in the extreme circumstances associated with overharvesting). Mr Demarais never states that his article concerns, "high grading of 1.5yr old bucks", nor does he discuss such. His article concerns the study of the hypothesis that harvest rates of 1.5yr old bucks could possible have an effect on the future genetics of the population as a whole. In his summary he discusses whether the removal of select 1.5yr olds can later result in the equivelent of "high grading" on the entire population......In plain english his article is not about high grading 1.5yr old bucks......(These are two completely different situations and to misunderstand this point would lead false and misleading conclusions.) JC Finally, I should also point out that the findings of Mr. Demarests research supports the use of more restrictive antler regulations to protect 1.5yr bucks....not less
|
||
| Posted: 15 Jul 2007 5:18 PM Last Edited By: jcchartboy | ||
|
|
Registered User Currently Offline |
Posts: 2456 Non Typical: Join Date: Mar 2005 |
|
NJ,
In the end all that matters here, (as I know these discussions can go on endlessly), is the simple fact that..., in Mr Demarais own words... Quote:
Hunters must learn to identify young bucks based on body characteristics and not rely on antler-based criteria....that the hunter is the on-the-ground manager that determines the outcome of any harvest management goal. " ...On those points I am sure we can both agree...
JC |
||
| Posted: 15 Jul 2007 6:46 PM | ||
|
|
Registered User Currently Offline |
Posts: 966 Typical: Join Date: Mar 2006 |
|
absolutly!!!!! __________________ Hunting....Its All About The Gear!!!!!
|
||
RSS 2.0
Atom 1.0