This artical was writen by Eric Atherton, Eric is an editorial writer for the Post-Bulletin and an avid outdoorsman. He can be reached at [email protected]
Let antler-point experiment play out
In my e-mail box on Wednesday, I received a petition asking me to support the effort to overturn antler-point restrictions in Zone 3 and to once again make it legal for one hunter to shoot multiple bucks, then “cross-tag” them with his buddies’ tags.
Below is a portion of the petition’s wording. And, as the great newspaper humorist Dave Barry used to say: I’m not making this up.
“This rule promotes hunting deer for their antlers exclusively; we feel this is demeaning to the animals and the sport! By doing this the DNR has made this sport no better than killing an elephant for its tusks, a rhino for its horn, or a bear for its gall! These are considered illegal and despicable acts the world over!”
Wow. I didn’t know PETA had taken a side on the antler-point rules.
Or consider this interesting claim: “For proper identification to take place under this rule, the animal needs to feel unthreatened and unaware it is being hunted. The only legal hunting method that would accomplish this is to ambush the deer, most likely from an elevated stand. Hunting from elevated stands result in over half of all hunting accidents.”
Logically, I have no choice but to conclude that those who oppose antler point restrictions — including the Minnesota Deer Hunters Association — are now opposed to “ambushing” deer from an elevated position. I expect Rep. Steve Drazkowski to introduce a tree stand ban at his earliest convenience.
Frankly, after I got done laughing at the absurdity of this document, I became rather depressed. We were supposed to be in a three-year window when the arguments could stop and the results would be allowed to speak for themselves. But on Wednesday, hunters, legislators and DNR officials once again had to gather in Winona to rehash the same old arguments.
I heartily endorse the ban on cross-tagging. One buck is enough for anyone. I have mixed feelings about the APRs, but the science seems solid, and in other states they’ve worked well. As a guy who’s seen one mature buck during the last six hunting seasons (five yards outside my bow range), I’m ready to try something new.
Which brings me to back Wednesday’s meeting. I’d like to respond to some of the claims I heard in Winona.
• To those who said last year was the worst year of hunting they’ve ever had, I say that this year might be their best, with more 10- and 12-point bucks in southeastern Minnesota than at any time in the past 50 years — and 2012 could be absolutely eye-popping.
• To the hunters who say that more big bucks will mean decreased access for the average hunter, I’d say, “What access?” Many landowners are trying to manage their own deer right now, so the chance of knocking on a door and obtaining permission to hunt private land isn’t just remote — it’s pretty much non-existent. I know that from personal experience. If you don’t own land or have close friends or relatives who do, you spend your time on public land or hope you get drawn for a state park hunt.
• To the Minnesota Deer Hunters Association, which says the new rules are a threat to family hunting traditions, I’d point out that hunters up to age 17 can still shoot any deer they see. Seems like this would encourage party hunters to include a lot more young hunters in their group, and to post them in places where they’re likely to see a lot of deer and get a lot of opportunity. What’s the downside? Would the adults be green with envy that the kids are allowed to shoot a forkhorn?
• To the hunter who suggested that the APRs be enforced only on state-owned land, I’d point out that although land can be owned, wildlife cannot. The deer in your woodlot belong to no one — and to everyone.
• To those who say “Educate, don’t regulate,” I’d ask if they meant to say “Legislate, don’t regulate.” After all, when you ask a legislator to hamstring the DNR, that’s exactly what you’re doing.
• To everyone who’s threatened to quit hunting deer if you don’t get your way, I’d suggest that there are plenty of pawn shops that would buy your guns. And if you’re lucky, those guns will still be there for you to buy back next fall after you see that big buck on the back 40.
• To Rep. Steve Drazkowski, who seems to believe there was a sub-legal buck left to rot behind every tree in Zone 3 last year, I’d ask if he bothered to confirm that claim with the DNR before he became a crusader against change. Does he have photos of this alleged wanton waste? Or perhaps some trail-cam pictures of those 140-inch six-pointers that we keep hearing about?
• And finally, to everyone who seems so dead-set on preventing this three-year experiment from running its course, I’d simply ask this: What are you afraid of? That it might actually work?
Buffalo County is a prime example. If you don’t own land or know someone who does, you are paying to hunt Buffalo County.