|
|
Post by hartman756 on Jul 31, 2016 18:40:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by QDM MARS on Aug 1, 2016 8:17:33 GMT -5
Good stuff ! Obviously those that claimed the restriction would cause a loss in buck harvest were right and those that promised that there would be just as many bucks harvested but they would be bigger were wrong ! I think the contrast between the big reduction in buck harvest in the NWLP 12 MARs area and the huge increase in the buck harvest in the counties that share a border with it show it is a failed regulation .
|
|
bnb
restricted
Posts: 58 
|
Post by bnb on Aug 1, 2016 18:24:13 GMT -5
Who providedo the data?
|
|
|
|
Post by fullthrottlehunter on Aug 1, 2016 19:19:18 GMT -5
Quite entertaining. Isn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by QDM MARS on Aug 2, 2016 9:10:54 GMT -5
I think the contrast between the big reduction in buck harvest in the NWLP 12 MARs area and the huge increase in the buck harvest in the counties that share a border with it show it is a failed regulation . You would think that. It's called confirmation bias, and you'd be wrong. There's a reason why the numbers look the way they do, and it has nothing to do with the actual harvest trend over time as The "Concerned" Sportsman of one would lead you to believe. It is nothing but an intentionally skewed data set pawned off as a harvest trend. He knows that too, but probably won't admit it. What he did was an intentional, manipulative, and outright misleading attempt at showing actual harvest trends. He did you no favors. Count on it. At least he didn't hide his true intentions behind an artificial "concern", such as disease risk, this time. I will not deny that post APR buck harvest numbers dropped. It was expected/predicted, and it did. However, not to the extent in which the "Concerned" would lead you to believe, and most certainly not to the extent that a new buck harvest trend can be established. If this report is as misleading as you claim then please show what you feel the real numbers are. |
|
|
|
Post by ridge on Aug 2, 2016 15:05:19 GMT -5
At the June NRC meeting, Dr. Frawley stated that he had no data that supported the claim that APRs either improved hunter retention or increased buck harvest. He further stated that any increase in buck harvest in those few areas where it took place was due to an increase in deer population. My daughter was up in the northern part of the NW13 on a recent vacation when she was able to catch a local MAPRs member in action proving that MARs puts a more mature deer behind every tree:  |
|
bnb
restricted
Posts: 58
|
Post by bnb on Aug 2, 2016 19:22:19 GMT -5
At the June NRC meeting, Dr. Frawley stated that he had no data that supported the claim that APRs either improved hunter retention or increased buck harvest. Â He further stated that any increase in buck harvest in those few areas where it took place was due to an increase in deer population. My daughter was up in the northern part of the NW13 on a recent vacation when she was able to catch a local MAPRs member in action proving that MARs puts a more mature deer behind every tree: Apr's are not designed to increase buck harvest or retain hunters. They are designed to advance buck age structure 1 year. Once you grasp that concept and grasp the concept that hunters like big bucks and grasp the concept that hunters want more big bucks and grasp the concept that hunters understand that aprs will help that agenda and let go of the concept that this is just a qdma or special interest group pushing their views on the hunting community you will realize...... This is what the majority of the hunting community wants and it's those who formed what you call special interest groups that took the time and expense to lead the way for the majority. |
|
|
|
Post by fullthrottlehunter on Aug 2, 2016 19:27:50 GMT -5
If this report is as misleading as you claim then please show what you feel the real numbers are. I've deleted my post. This forum is not the place to handle this. Rest assured it will be addressed at the appropriate time and place. Carry on. |
|
|
|
Post by ridge on Aug 2, 2016 23:11:24 GMT -5
At the June NRC meeting, Dr. Frawley stated that he had no data that supported the claim that APRs either improved hunter retention or increased buck harvest. He further stated that any increase in buck harvest in those few areas where it took place was due to an increase in deer population. My daughter was up in the northern part of the NW13 on a recent vacation when she was able to catch a local MAPRs member in action proving that MARs puts a more mature deer behind every tree: Apr's are not designed to increase buck harvest or retain hunters. They are designed to advance buck age structure 1 year. Once you grasp that concept and grasp the concept that hunters like big bucks and grasp the concept that hunters want more big bucks and grasp the concept that hunters understand that aprs will help that agenda and let go of the concept that this is just a qdma or special interest group pushing their views on the hunting community you will realize...... This is what the majority of the hunting community wants and it's those who formed what you call special interest groups that took the time and expense to lead the way for the majority. The pro-restriction crowd has consistently said that MARs will create more mature bucks in the harvest and will enable the retention of more deer hunters. After 3 years these claims continue to be false. There is no evidence as of yet that the majority of the deer hunting community want MARs. |
|
bnb
restricted
Posts: 58
|
Post by bnb on Aug 3, 2016 13:01:30 GMT -5
Apr's are not designed to increase buck harvest or retain hunters. They are designed to advance buck age structure 1 year. Once you grasp that concept and grasp the concept that hunters like big bucks and grasp the concept that hunters want more big bucks and grasp the concept that hunters understand that aprs will help that agenda and let go of the concept that this is just a qdma or special interest group pushing their views on the hunting community you will realize...... This is what the majority of the hunting community wants and it's those who formed what you call special interest groups that took the time and expense to lead the way for the majority. The pro-restriction crowd has consistently said that MARs will create more mature bucks in the harvest and will enable the retention of more deer hunters. Â After 3 years these claims continue to be false. Â There is no evidence as of yet that the majority of the deer hunting community want MARs. You have to be more specific oneeds who said that. Plenty of uneducated blow hards who don't use facts on both sides of the debate. I know the LPDMI pointed out the hunter retention in Leelanau but did not say that was a result of aprs. As they also pointed out the increase in older bucks in Leelanau and reduction in yearlings harvested based off dnr provided data. Neither of those statements say aprs will retain hunters or increase mature bucks. |
|
bnb
restricted
Posts: 58
|
Post by bnb on Aug 3, 2016 21:05:38 GMT -5
Question about the link.
In the how do the yearling harvest percentages compare?
How do the 2.5 age class compare?
How do the 3.5 age class compare?
|
|
|
|
Post by ridge on Aug 4, 2016 10:23:25 GMT -5
That was not my link. My information came from Dr. Frawley's comments at the June NRC Meeting.
The LPDMI and other restriction groups may not have made those statements formally but individuals within that group such as Dr. Jim and Tony have.
It is logical that the yearling harvest would decrease because much of it became illegal to harvest under MARs. That does not mean that some would not shoot them if they were legal. I discourage the taking of yearlings (small spikes) on our hunting property not because I see a problem taking one but because I personally like to see them and their antics. There are enough forks, fives, sixes, and other bucks so that it is not necessary in our area to take yearlings. That is just my preference and I will continue to favor choice over mandatory regs.
|
|
|
|
Post by hartman756 on Aug 4, 2016 12:34:20 GMT -5
Question about the link. In the how do the yearling harvest percentages compare? How do the 2.5 age class compare? How do the 3.5 age class compare? Well lets see , the DNR closed their check stations around the NWLP MARs zone and turned the data collection over to the QDMA ( and then made it look like the data was collected at other check stations by the DNR) At the same time there was a drastic decline in the buck harvest within the MARs zone compared to the surrounding DMUs. What that tells me those harvest % are nothing but QDMA manipulated data and mean nothing to any one but those that will do anything to push the MARs agenda . It tells a lot about the character of those that will present data as legitimate that they know has been heavily manipulated . |
|
bnb
restricted
Posts: 58
|
Post by bnb on Aug 4, 2016 12:59:52 GMT -5
Question about the link. In the how do the yearling harvest percentages compare? How do the 2.5 age class compare? How do the 3.5 age class compare? Well lets see , the DNR closed their check stations around the NWLP MARs zone and turned the data collection over to the QDMA ( and then made it look like the data was collected at other check stations by the DNR) At the same time there was a drastic decline in the buck harvest within the MARs zone compared to the surrounding DMUs. What that tells me those harvest % are nothing but QDMA manipulated data and mean nothing to any one but those that will do anything to push the MARs agenda . It tells a lot about the character of those that will present data as legitimate that they know has been heavily manipulated . I did not ask for your opinion on the subject. Please read the questions again. If you do not have the answers no need to reply. |
|
bnb
restricted
Posts: 58
|
Post by bnb on Aug 4, 2016 13:04:31 GMT -5
That was not my link. Â My information came from Dr. Frawley's comments at the June NRC Meeting. The LPDMI and other restriction groups may not have made those statements formally but individuals within that group such as Dr. Jim and Tony have. It is logical that the yearling harvest would decrease because much of it became illegal to harvest under MARs. Â That does not mean that some would not shoot them if they were legal. Â I discourage the taking of yearlings (small spikes) on our hunting property not because I see a problem taking one but because I personally like to see them and their antics. Â There are enough forks, fives, sixes, and other bucks so that it is not necessary in our area to take yearlings. Â That is just my preference and I will continue to favor choice over mandatory regs. Jim and Tony have never said aprs WILL retain hunters or that aprs WILL result in more bucks being harvested. Formerly or off the record. They have said.....and please comprehend this. Hunter retention was better in Leelanau compared to the surrounding counties. It may or may not of been a result of apr regulations. Aprs will cause a drop in buck harvest during the first year and will return to similar numbers by year 2 or 3 as prior to aprs. |
|
|
|
Post by hartman756 on Aug 4, 2016 13:13:25 GMT -5
I did read the question and there can be no comparison for the reasons I gave. Lets review: In the NWLP Mars zone the DNR turned the check station duties over to the QDMA . In the areas outside the NWLP MARs zone the DNR continued to collect the check station data themselves !  The only people who care about the % you are trying to bring into the discussion are those that only care about passing out the QDMA cool aid no matter if the data is manipulated or not  |
|
|
|
Post by jimmer on Aug 4, 2016 13:33:21 GMT -5
I did read the question and there can be no comparison for the reasons I gave. Lets review: In the NWLP Mars zone the DNR turned the check station duties over to the QDMA . In the areas outside the NWLP MARs zone the DNR continued to collect the check station data themselves ! The only people who care about the % you are trying to bring into the discussion are those that only care about passing out the QDMA cool aid no matter if the data is manipulated or not Another point about the harvest % is that the QDMers rely so heavily on them because they know from experience in other states that what happens when MARs are implemented is the harvest of antlered deer goes down substantially because the 1.5 year olds are made illegal . In turn that increases the % of the older bucks in the harvest on paper and only on paper . In other states where MARs have been implemented the antlered harvest remains well below the level prior to implanting MARs even many years into the regulation. The QDMers chant Leelanau over and over again simply because that is all they got that supports antlered harvest returning to levels pre MARs . |
|
bnb
restricted
Posts: 58
|
Post by bnb on Aug 4, 2016 15:24:14 GMT -5
I did read the question and there can be no comparison for the reasons I gave. Lets review: In the NWLP Mars zone the DNR turned the check station duties over to the QDMA . In the areas outside the NWLP MARs zone the DNR continued to collect the check station data themselves ! The only people who care about the % you are trying to bring into the discussion are those that only care about passing out the QDMA cool aid no matter if the data is manipulated or not I don't need percentages. I'll take numbers. |
|
bnb
restricted
Posts: 58
|
Post by bnb on Aug 4, 2016 15:25:03 GMT -5
I did read the question and there can be no comparison for the reasons I gave. Lets review: In the NWLP Mars zone the DNR turned the check station duties over to the QDMA . In the areas outside the NWLP MARs zone the DNR continued to collect the check station data themselves ! The only people who care about the % you are trying to bring into the discussion are those that only care about passing out the QDMA cool aid no matter if the data is manipulated or not Another point about the harvest % is that the QDMers rely so heavily on them because they know from experience in other states that what happens when MARs are implemented is the harvest of antlered deer goes down substantially because the 1.5 year olds are made illegal . In turn that increases the % of the older bucks in the harvest on paper and only on paper . In other states where MARs have been implemented the antlered harvest remains well below the level prior to implanting MARs even many years into the regulation. The QDMers chant Leelanau over and over again simply because that is all they got that supports antlered harvest returning to levels pre MARs . Do they provide anything beyond percentages? |
|
bnb
restricted
Posts: 58
|
Post by bnb on Aug 4, 2016 15:36:29 GMT -5
The fact is Michigan is losing hunters as a whole.
Less hunters is going to effect harvest numbers.
Aprs are not implemented to retain hunters or increase buvk harvests.
They serve one goal and that goal is achieved.
You guys argue the survey method but only after the results pass or nearly pass. A decade ago the fight stopped when the results showed a dramatic support against aprs.
Times changed.
Now you are grasping at anything you can to stop the change. Understandable, that is how things work.
But over shadowing the true goal of aprs by saYing promises were made and not happening when nothing of the sort was ever promised is disingenuous.
There is no denying aprs do what they are intended to do.....protect a portion of the yearling buck cohort.
Michigan will continue to lose hunters regardless if we have aprs or not.
No matter what you think or say there will be another survey and the future of the nw12 aprs will be determined by that survey. That is the process. We have to accept that.
|
|
|
|
Post by hartman756 on Aug 4, 2016 23:44:52 GMT -5
I did read the question and there can be no comparison for the reasons I gave. Lets review: In the NWLP Mars zone the DNR turned the check station duties over to the QDMA . In the areas outside the NWLP MARs zone the DNR continued to collect the check station data themselves ! The only people who care about the % you are trying to bring into the discussion are those that only care about passing out the QDMA cool aid no matter if the data is manipulated or not I don't need percentages. I'll take numbers. Lets review again : You ask "In the how do the yearling harvest percentages compare? " YOUR WORDS ! I answered the "percentages " are so manipulated with the QDMA being the only ones collecting check station data since MARs have been implemented in the MARs zone that any comparison of the "percentages " is nothing but a red herring to try to divert the real data that shows antlered harvest substantially decreased in the DMUs where MARs were implemented and substantially increased in the surrounding DMUs at the same time !
|
|
|
|
Post by fullthrottlehunter on Aug 5, 2016 0:11:13 GMT -5
I don't need percentages. I'll take numbers. Lets review again : You ask "In the how do the yearling harvest percentages compare? " YOUR WORDS ! I answered the "percentages " are so manipulated with the QDMA being the only ones collecting check station data since MARs have been implemented in the MARs zone that any comparison of the "percentages " is nothing but a red herring to try to divert the real data that shows antlered harvest substantially decreased in the DMUs where MARs were implemented and substantially increased in the surrounding DMUs at the same time !
The harvest decreased substantially in the SW lower as well. By nearly 50%. Is that because of APR's too? |
|
|
|
Post by fullthrottlehunter on Aug 5, 2016 0:20:03 GMT -5
...In turn that increases the % of the older bucks in the harvest on paper and only on paper . LOL. That made me chuckle. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by Dale Malusi on Aug 5, 2016 9:42:50 GMT -5
The fact is Michigan is losing hunters as a whole. Less hunters is going to effect harvest numbers. Aprs are not implemented to retain hunters or increase buvk harvests. They serve one goal and that goal is achieved. You guys argue the survey method but only after the results pass or nearly pass. A decade ago the fight stopped when the results showed a dramatic support against aprs. Times changed. Now you are grasping at anything you can to stop the change. Understandable, that is how things work. But over shadowing the true goal of aprs by saYing promises were made and not happening when nothing of the sort was ever promised is disingenuous. There is no denying aprs do what they are intended to do.....protect a portion of the yearling buck cohort. Michigan will continue to lose hunters regardless if we have aprs or not. No matter what you think or say there will be another survey and the future of the nw12 aprs will be determined by that survey. That is the process. We have to accept that. Go back and read the wording of the NW12 proposal, i.e. 'protecting fawns'. Read the wording of the Ldmi proposals. Then get back with us. |
|
bnb
restricted
Posts: 58
|
Post by bnb on Aug 5, 2016 13:59:55 GMT -5
The fact is Michigan is losing hunters as a whole. Less hunters is going to effect harvest numbers. Aprs are not implemented to retain hunters or increase buvk harvests. They serve one goal and that goal is achieved. You guys argue the survey method but only after the results pass or nearly pass. A decade ago the fight stopped when the results showed a dramatic support against aprs. Times changed. Now you are grasping at anything you can to stop the change. Understandable, that is how things work. But over shadowing the true goal of aprs by saYing promises were made and not happening when nothing of the sort was ever promised is disingenuous. There is no denying aprs do what they are intended to do.....protect a portion of the yearling buck cohort. Michigan will continue to lose hunters regardless if we have aprs or not. No matter what you think or say there will be another survey and the future of the nw12 aprs will be determined by that survey. That is the process. We have to accept that. Go back and read the wording of the NW12 proposal, i.e. 'protecting fawns'. Read the wording of the Ldmi proposals. Then get back with us. I don't need to. One passes one failed barely. I have a suggestion for you guys but why would I help you? |
|
|
|
Post by ridge on Aug 5, 2016 16:19:15 GMT -5
That was not my link. My information came from Dr. Frawley's comments at the June NRC Meeting. The LPDMI and other restriction groups may not have made those statements formally but individuals within that group such as Dr. Jim and Tony have. It is logical that the yearling harvest would decrease because much of it became illegal to harvest under MARs. That does not mean that some would not shoot them if they were legal. I discourage the taking of yearlings (small spikes) on our hunting property not because I see a problem taking one but because I personally like to see them and their antics. There are enough forks, fives, sixes, and other bucks so that it is not necessary in our area to take yearlings. That is just my preference and I will continue to favor choice over mandatory regs. Jim and Tony have never said aprs WILL retain hunters or that aprs WILL result in more bucks being harvested. Formerly or off the record. They have said.....and please comprehend this. Hunter retention was better in Leelanau compared to the surrounding counties. It may or may not of been a result of apr regulations. Aprs will cause a drop in buck harvest during the first year and will return to similar numbers by year 2 or 3 as prior to aprs. Dr. Jim just stated that idea about more mature bucks being harvested in the latest thread on APRs on the M-S site. It is now locked, check it out. Perhaps I should have stated "more mature bucks". I thought I had. Parkinson's is a royal pain. They and others have often said that MARs will be the salvation of deer hunting in Michigan and that it will bring hunters into Michigan and will cause others to stay. Please there is enough evidence on the various forum boards. I have also talked with them in person. Your last sentence has not happened according to Dr. Frawley. |
|
|
|
Post by ridge on Aug 5, 2016 16:28:40 GMT -5
I did read the question and there can be no comparison for the reasons I gave. Lets review: In the NWLP Mars zone the DNR turned the check station duties over to the QDMA . In the areas outside the NWLP MARs zone the DNR continued to collect the check station data themselves ! The only people who care about the % you are trying to bring into the discussion are those that only care about passing out the QDMA cool aid no matter if the data is manipulated or not I don't need percentages. I'll take numbers. I have been asking Dr. Jim to use numbers for years. He always states that percentages are more accurate and reflective of the truth. You are right as I much prefer having real numbers to look at along side of the percentages! |
|
|
|
Post by Dale Malusi on Aug 5, 2016 18:06:04 GMT -5
Go back and read the wording of the NW12 proposal, i.e. 'protecting fawns'. Read the wording of the Ldmi proposals. Then get back with us. I don't need to. One passes one failed barely. I have a suggestion for you guys but why would I help you? bnb said; Apr's are not designed to increase buck harvest or retain hunters. And...Neither of those statements say aprs will retain hunters or increase mature bucks. And..In the how do the yearling harvest percentages compare? And..Jim and Tony have never said aprs WILL retain hunters or that aprs WILL result in more bucks being harvested. And...I don't need percentages. I'll take numbers. And...Aprs are not implemented to retain hunters or increase buvk harvests. And...I don't need to. One passes one failed barely. And I said read the proposals and get back. Yes, you need to. |
|
bnb
restricted
Posts: 58
|
Post by bnb on Aug 5, 2016 19:08:58 GMT -5
I don't need to. One passes one failed barely. I have a suggestion for you guys but why would I help you? bnb said; Apr's are not designed to increase buck harvest or retain hunters. And...Neither of those statements say aprs will retain hunters or increase mature bucks. And..In the how do the yearling harvest percentages compare? And..Jim and Tony have never said aprs WILL retain hunters or that aprs WILL result in more bucks being harvested. And...I don't need percentages. I'll take numbers. And...Aprs are not implemented to retain hunters or increase buvk harvests. And...I don't need to. One passes one failed barely. And I said read the proposals and get back. Yes, you need to. Provide me with a link to what ever it is you would like me to read. |
|
|
|
Post by Dale Malusi on Aug 5, 2016 19:10:57 GMT -5
You are a good fisherman, find it yourself it is out there.
|
|
The only people who care about the % you are trying to bring into the discussion are those that only care about passing out the QDMA cool aid no matter if the data is manipulated or not 
