Minnesota Whitetail Alliance

APR Public Input Meetings!

Ok all you APR supporters out there, here is your chance to provide some input to the DNR. We need to have a good turnout from the APR supporters because this is one of the things that will determine if the DNR moves forward with extending of the APR rule in SE Minnesota. Remember, if it fails in SE MN, it likely will not expand elsewhere in the state. Here are the …locations:

· Monday, February 25th – Cannon Falls High School auditorium

· Wednesday, February 27th – Winona Southeast Technical College – Tandeski Center, 1250 Homer Road, Winona.

I don’t have the times yet, but I’m guessing it will be something like 6:00 pm. I will post the times when we get them. Please try to mark your calendars to attend at least one of these.

7pm to 9pm

who from the DNR will be present at these meetings?

Those of you who are also against the extending of APR in the current area or into any other area should also make plans to attend. I really do not think it is right for hunters to have to drive any distance to make their views known. However, with several groups trying hard to push these changes thru on the down low or at the least with as little notice as possible, this may be your only chance to let you thought be known. As I have stated many times on this subject if APR is what the majority of deer hunters are in favor of ( I do not think so ) then I will live with the change. I just do not want to see a select few but vocal minority push thru a personal agenda.

Quote:

---

who from the DNR will be present at these meetings?

---

X2

I think it was Slack who suggested it, but couldn’t they find out how “supported” this issue is with a survey when purchasing a license.

I heard Lou Cornicelli will be the main speaker

Quote:

---

I think it was Slack who suggested it, but couldn’t they find out how “supported” this issue is with a survey when purchasing a license.

---

That is what I have said many times on this subject. They have used this method for various other issues in the past. That to me would be the best / fairest way to find out how hunters feel about the issue. I am sure that most of those who are in favor of APR would not like to see the issue addressed in this way.

Quote:

---

I heard Lou Cornicelli will be the main speaker

---

Who is Lou Cornicelli? Is he with the Minnesota DNR?

I am glad that this is being held in Winona, that area is full of die-hard deer hunters. Not to say that other parts of the state don’t have pockets of dedicated hunters, but SE MN counties boast large populations, and some slob bucks. I want to see APR continue, as do a lot of the hunters that I associate myself with personally, but I also want it to spread to the rest of the state. Clearly, this is just my single opinion, but we have positive visual proof of our 4 farms that are smack dab in the APR zone and the sheer number of total bucks that have been seen recently. Although they are not always an increased number of large bucks, it is certainly a nice change from watching half of the up and comers get massacred during our gun season. Through stories, and personal experience, I am noticing hunters who have become much more patient and reluctant to shoot the first buck that comes by. On the flip side, I saw guys shooting a lot of doe on or near our farms. If there was a way to accurately identify the number of deer prior to APR implement, I would be really curious to know what the deer population is currently and into the future.

Quote:

---

Those of you who are also against the extending of APR in the current area or into any other area should also make plans to attend. I really do not think it is right for hunters to have to drive any distance to make their views known. However, with several groups trying hard to push these changes thru on the down low or at the least with as little notice as possible, this may be your only chance to let you thought be known. As I have stated many times on this subject if APR is what the majority of deer hunters are in favor of ( I do not think so ) then I will live with the change. I just do not want to see a select few but vocal minority push thru a personal agenda.

---

“The never ending mythical ‘select few’ argument”
APR adversaries frequently resort to the defensive claim that some “select few” trophy groups are controlling or making the DNR implement APRs. Now even ignorant legislators are resorting to this tactic.
“These prohibitions were brought forward by DNR upon the urging of two different deer groups that would like the ‘government’ to implement policies that they believe would increase the number of ‘large’ bucks in the region” (quote from Rep Drazkowski). This claim is patently false.
On page 3 of the 2009 zone 3 DNR survey summary prepared by the DNR it says…. “The vast majority of the survey respondents (93 percent) did not belong to an organized hunting group.”
This statistical fact, beyond any doubts, proves that the DNR implemented new regulation based on what “the public” majority said and NOT because minority “deer groups” ‘urged’ them to…these facts completely invalidate Rep. Drazkowski’s position statement and his initial justification for supporting this repeal. There are no “select few” trophy groups controlling the DNR, they go by public majority on public surveys.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I heard Lou Cornicelli will be the main speaker

---

Who is Lou Cornicelli? Is he with the Minnesota DNR?

---

If you do not know who Lou Cornicelli is this tells me that you have not done your homework on this topic and no facts to back up your claim that……..

Quote:

---

if APR is what the majority of deer hunters are in favor of ( I do not think so )

---

Click here and scroll down to page 10 for the answer to your question.

“Trophy hunters are horn hogs”… “I don’t wanna be told what kind of buck to shoot.”

Who’s the “real” horn hog?…..The guys who patiently pass on young bucks for years if need be before tagging a mature buck ….or the guy who “doesn’t want to be told what kind of buck he can shoot” and stubbornly refuses to let even a tiny fork horn or six-pointer go by him no matter how small. He wants ’em ALL! There’s the real horn hog.

“APRs are a trophy buck regulation”

Trophy management protects bucks until their racks reach trophy proportions. APRs cannot protect them that long because once they have 7 points they’re legal. Under APRs virtually all bucks beyond 1.5 years old are fair game and unprotected. This is why under APRs roughly 75 percent of buck harvest is still 2.5 years old or less and very few live past 3.5 years of age. In fact, it is highly unlikely that any yearling buck “saved” by APRs his first year of life will live through another 3 or 4 years of peak rut gun seasons to become a big mature trophy buck. APRs are simply “not” a trophy program.

“Hunters are giving something up under APRs”

American whitetail enthusiasts are a pretty uniform and solid bunch of people. They love deer and deer hunting. The family hunting traditions and values of the deer hunters in APR states like Pennsylvania and Missouri are pretty much identical to those of Minnesota’s deer hunters. In other words, most of them, just like us, are not trophy hunters.
Missouri for example is nearly identical to Minnesota in habitat acres, deer numbers, hunter densities, annual deer harvest totals and they also have a peak rut firearms season like we do. Support for APRs in Missouri has gone from 40 percent to 85 percent and they added 34 counties to the original 29 after the five-year test run.

Does this sound like Missouri’s deer hunters feel they have given something up with APRs? Not hardly. Missouri’s deer hunters, by and large, have the same traditional hunting values as Minnesotans and they obviously feel they have GAINED something with APRs. And they have. Simply put, increased and continual hunter support for APRs over time clearly proves APRs add value to the deer hunting experience for traditional deer hunters. APRs will work as well here in Minnesota if given the chance. Support APRs.

“APRs will cause high grading”

We all know genetic transfer is a very complicated matter. Antlered bucks (and does) carry a complex “background” of genetic information that goes way beyond external appearances (antler points for example) much the same as humans do. It is pretty far reaching to think that harvesting only some, but not all, of the buck herd and/or doe herd, based on “visual” external characteristics such as antler points as yearlings at age 1.5, will somehow “dilute” the hundreds of thousands of years of evolution which created Minnesota’s very solid gene pool in the first place. Not to mention that females carry 50 percent of the gene pool. Peak rut gun seasons, which allow half a million hunters to disrupt the peak breeding cycle and demolish aggressive bucks during the “only” chance they get each year to pass their genes forward … are likely a much greater threat for messing with the gene pool.

“APRs are bad because we’ll have difficulty ‘seeing’ if a buck is ‘legal’ or not before he gets away.”

Turkey hunters have to identify the 3 inch minimum beard length required to be legal bird. Pheasant hunters have to identify roosters from hens. Duck hunters have to identify all sorts of different “legal details” about all different kinds of ducks before pulling the trigger. In short, turkey hunters, pheasant hunters, duck hunters, etc., have long had to identify the “legal status” of their targets before pulling the trigger. And they’ve done so without complaint. Identifying the “legal status” of quarry hasn’t been an “issue” in any of these hunting seasons, and identifying the “legal status” of a buck during deer season will be no different.

“The vast majority of Minnesota’s deer hunters are NOT trophy hunters. So why do 65 percent of them support yearling buck protection?”

(This is a key question… and the answer is just as important.)
It’s because the hunter majority is now seeing firsthand in the field what DNR charts have long said….we are overwhelming the yearling bucks in Minnesota. Zone 3 DNR buck harvest age charts show that around 90 percent of the bucks harvested today in zone 3 are 2.5 years old or less, as is the case throughout most of Minnesota. Most hunters in Minnesota are still decent, conscientious people, and as they learn the truth about yearling buck harvest excesses here in Minnesota, they understand and support the need to do something about this. This is why, even though most hunters are not trophy hunters, the majority still strongly supports yearling buck protection (APRs).

Steve

All of your post are missing the simple statement / request that I and others have made. Which is to let all Deer hunters who are affected by the proposal ( be that Zone 3 hunters or all hunters statewide ) have a say so in the matter. Rather than the extremely small % of deer hunters who have attended one of the few meetings held on the subject or who have completed one of the few online survey on the issue. This statement is direct from the Bluffland whitetail Association, which I assume you are a member of since there is a link direct from the tag on all of your post.

“ Management strategies also must take into consideration balancing the interests of hunters, landowners and the public. White-tailed deer, like all fish and wildlife, are a valued public resource. Their management should remain in the hands of the public wildlife managers, whose responsibility it is to serve the best interests of all citizens, versus the private interests of a select few.”

All I have ever stated is that ALL hunters affected should have a say in the decision rather than a select few ( those who attend a meeting or those who completed the few online surveys )

Quote:

---

Although they are not always an increased number of large bucks, it is certainly a nice change from watching half of the up and comers get massacred during our gun season.
On the flip side, I saw guys shooting a lot of doe on or near our farms.

---

massacer young bucks or massacer doe’s, which will have the biggest impact on the herd?

Can anyone who attends one of these 2 meetings ask the following ?’s

1. How was it determined what hunters to send the surveys to?
2. What % of those who were surveyed responded?
3. How many total hunters are effected by the current proposal?

Could you also let me know how many hunters attend these meetings?

Thanks.

Quote:

---

DNR seeks input on southeastern Minnesota antler point restrictions

The public can help the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) determine whether to recommend a continuation of antler point restrictions in southeastern Minnesota.

Interested individuals can view an online presentation on the restrictions and complete an online survey at DNR Info

The DNR will analyze information gathered from mailed hunter surveys, public meetings this week in Cannon Falls and Winona and online survey responses to develop a 2013 season structure to recommend to the Minnesota Legislature. Under 2011 legislation, antler point restrictions in southeastern Minnesota require legislative approval.

Meetings are scheduled from 7-9 p.m. on the following dates:

Monday, Feb. 25, Cannon Falls High School auditorium, 820 East Minnesota St.

Wednesday, Feb. 27, Tandeski Center, Winona Southeast Technical College,

1250 Homer Road.

Special regulations enacted in 2010 created the restrictions, which received extensive biological review and examination of social implications prior to enactment. Those regulations included:

A nine-day firearms deer season for both the 3A (early) and 3B (late) hunts.

An antler restriction of four points on one side for all hunters older than 17 during the archery, firearms and muzzleloader seasons.

Prohibiting hunters from tagging an antlered buck for another hunter.

Establishing a youth-only season in October during an extended mid-month break for most public school children.

During the past two months, 4,000 surveys were sent to randomly-selected hunters who participated in the 3A and 3B seasons. Results from that survey indicate public support for continuing the antler point restriction regulations that were enacted in 2010.

Survey results are preliminary because another survey recently was sent out to hunters who had not responded to either of the first two mailings. Final results, which will be available this spring, are not expected to change much.

---

4000 surveys were sent out. A unknown # were not responded to. The results are not available till this spring. The online survey is not available to Feb. 28th and they are having meetings today and this Wed. to discuss the data. Ya. That sounds like they have the data they need to have a good discussion on the porposal

Quote:

---

4000 surveys were sent out. A unknown # were not responded to. The results are not available till this spring. The online survey is not available to Feb. 28th and they are having meetings today and this Wed. to discuss the data. Ya. That sounds like they have the data they need to have a good discussion on the porposal

---

This meeting is not for reporting the results it is to collect more data and get public input. The link for the online survey should be posted tomorrow, I will post it here when it is available.

Quote:

---

Survey results are preliminary because another survey recently was sent out to hunters who had not responded to either of the first two mailings. Final results, which will be available this spring, are not expected to change much.

---

Quote:

---

Can anyone who attends one of these 2 meetings ask the following ?’s

1. How was it determined what hunters to send the surveys to?
2. What % of those who were surveyed responded?
3. How many total hunters are effected by the current proposal?

Could you also let me know how many hunters attend these meetings?

Thanks.

---

I am going to try and make the meeting tonight and see if I can get an answer to these questions for you. Here is an article in the Star Trip with some more info.

CLICK HERE FOR LINK

One of your questions was why do they not poll hunters when they buy there license? The answer I got on this was, one they are not 100 percent accurate because not everyone selling the licensees always asks the question. Two the DNR wants more than a one question survey.

There should be an online survey that comes out tomorrow I will post the link here when it is available.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Can anyone who attends one of these 2 meetings ask the following ?’s

1. How was it determined what hunters to send the surveys to?
2. What % of those who were surveyed responded?
3. How many total hunters are effected by the current proposal?

Could you also let me know how many hunters attend these meetings?

Thanks.

---

I am going to try and make the meeting tonight and see if I can get an answer to these questions for you. Here is an article in the Star Trip with some more info.

CLICK HERE FOR LINK

One of your questions was why do they not poll hunters when they buy there license? The answer I got on this was, one they are not 100 percent accurate because not everyone selling the licensees always asks the question. Two the DNR wants more than a one question survey.

There should be an online survey that comes out tomorrow I will post the link here when it is available.

---

They could make a reply necessary for the sale of the license to be completed.

Why do they need more than one ?. Are you in favor of a statewide APR? Yes or No. Sounds rather simple and to the point to me.

Quote:

---

They could make a reply necessary for the sale of the license to be completed.

Why do they need more than one ?. Are you in favor of a statewide APR? Yes or No. Sounds rather simple and to the point to me.

---

As much as I would like to see APR go state wide Timmy made a good point on the post on the fishing side of IDO and the DNR agrees with him.

Quote:

---

I see the reasoning and benefits behind the concept, and IN THE RIGHT AREA, I think it makes great sense. In more open country with good populations of deer, I would be practicing APR without a law mandating it. But in the northeastern 3rd of the state (heavily forested areas) it does not seem like a good idea. In our area with LOTS of hunters and mostly public land, the average hunter does not get many chances to take a deer at all, let alone to study one and determine antler points. Without a doe tag, it is often the case of spotting a deer, getting a glimpse of bone, and firing…… I have shot more bucks by shooting at deer that were acting “buck-like” than not. Without doe tags in the party, a lot of deer I have shot would not have been taken….,and they were often times the only deer I had a chance at all year.

I do not see APR as being a good choice for everywhere.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Can anyone who attends one of these 2 meetings ask the following ?’s

1. How was it determined what hunters to send the surveys to?
2. What % of those who were surveyed responded?
3. How many total hunters are effected by the current proposal?

Could you also let me know how many hunters attend these meetings?

Thanks.

---

I am going to try and make the meeting tonight and see if I can get an answer to these questions for you. Here is an article in the Star Trip with some more info.

CLICK HERE FOR LINK

One of your questions was why do they not poll hunters when they buy there license? The answer I got on this was, one they are not 100 percent accurate because not everyone selling the licensees always asks the question. Two the DNR wants more than a one question survey.

There should be an online survey that comes out tomorrow I will post the link here when it is available.

---

They could make a reply necessary for the sale of the license to be completed.

Why do they need more than one ?. Are you in favor of a statewide APR? Yes or No. Sounds rather simple and to the point to me.

---

Here is the answer Lou Cornicelli gave to this question…….

Quote:

---

The simple fact is the agents don’t ask the questions. For example, where you asked this year if you wanted to donate to the walk-in access program? If you were, you were in the minority. What we’ve found is the agents hit ‘no’ because that ends the questioning. In fact, of the 90 people in Cannon Falls , only about 3 raised their hand when I asked them the question. In Winona, we had 180 people and maybe 10 raised their hand. So, if we want the answer to be ‘NO’, we would ask the question at the time of the license transaction. At this time I think it would be a poor policy to base management changes on a person at Wal-Mart/Gander/Cabelas (or any big box vendor because they sell the majority of licenses). Unless of course you want a 98% response of ‘no’. I think there would be some merit if we had self-service kiosks where you bought your own license; however, at this time we don’t have that as an option.

Lou Cornicelli
MN DNR

---

Here you go John here are the anwers to your questions.

Quote:

---

Can anyone who attends one of these 2 meetings ask the following ?’s

1. How was it determined what hunters to send the surveys to? Randomly
2. What % of those who were surveyed responded? Historically about 60%
3. How many total hunters are effected by the current proposal? About 40K

Could you also let me know how many hunters attend these meetings? Cannon Falls – 90, Winona – 180

---