From the Minnesota Whitetail Alliance

The lattest from Minnesota Whitetail Alliance on Facebook

If you are not on Facebook here is what was posted.

Minnesota Whitetail Alliance is here to help make your deer hunting better! Unfortunately, this process has become a political one. Here is how we got to where we are:

In 2009, the DNR agreed to do a trial of APR to see if it could be successfully implemented and what would happen to the hunter satisfaction. To make a long story short, there was good support for the program at the start, and after a three year trial, support for the program got even higher! Because of that, the DNR decided to continue the program beyond the trial and is now part of the regulations. Now this process was not easy. While supported by the majority of hunters in that area, we were strongly opposed by the Minnesota Deer Hunters Association and the Farm Bureau. Additionally, there was a Representative by the name of Steve Drazkowski who fought VERY HARD to block the continuation of the APR rule by introducing legislation that prevented the DNR from using APR as a management tool. Essentially, he was saying that he thought a bunch of Legislators at the capitol with little to no training in wildlife management were more qualified to make these decisions than the biologists and professionals working for our DNR. It is key to note that we feel that the DNR really is on our side on this issue regardless of what your local area wildlife manager may feel about APR and yearling buck protection. We would like the DNR to take on a bit more active role in helping us to trial APR in other areas. That’s where you will come in by putting the pressure on the DNR to be more aggressive on this front.

In the 2012 legislative session, while we were able convince the Legislature that APR should be allowed to continue in zone 3, there was enough of an issue raised that other Representatives decided that they don’t want the DNR to be able to expand the APR rule to other areas of the state. Again, they felt that somehow they were more qualified than the DNR at making these decisions. Because of this, the DNR really has its hands tied and has a hard time moving on this issue until the language prohibiting them to spread APR is removed through the removal of the language in the Game and Fish bill.

Here we are now, in a place where the next step to moving forward with the expansion of yearling buck protection in Minnesota is a legislative one. Sound complex? It is. That is exactly what those opposing APR wanted to achieve. But don’t worry! We at the MN Whitetail Alliance have been there and done that. We will sort through this process for you and lay out what is needed from you in some very simple steps. We will tell you exactly what you need to do and who you need to contact. We will give you the tools (and even the words to use if you wish) to help you do exactly what you will need to do to make this happen.
We are not sure if everything will be lined up to make a push in 2014, we believe a push in 2015 is more likely. We will likely test the waters in 2014 and if the time is right, we will make a push. You should see some calls to action coming real soon. Just stay tuned to our Facebook posts and keep liking, commenting on, and sharing our posts when you can.

I personally do not like APR forced on anyone. I do not think it will work in Northern MN at all. Look at the weather conditions and the predator situation. Most of my friends that hunt north reported seeing very few if any deer much less having to wait to see one with what some think is a trophy. They have not shot a deer in several years because they have not seen any. Now we have people belittling people because they shoot a younger buck with a small rack. This is playing right into the anti hunters play book because now you are about to legislate that you are trophy hunter and all you care about is the all mighty antler. I have nothing against anyone who likes to hunt for a trophy that is a personal choice of what you would like to harvest or the challenge of it. If you have private land great manage as you see fit this is America. We are slowly turning hunting into a sport of the rich. More and more land is being tied up in SE MN due to APR anyone that says it isn’t is lying. Look at all the adds for outfitters go door knocking and see how much access success you have. Landowners see $$$$ with big bucks. Look what playing with zone 4 did to access to land when they switched to a continuous 9 day season. Many Farmers/landowners hunted the first season and let others hunt the 2nd. Now nope we are hunting seen it 1st hand. I just do not see how moving APR to parts of the State that are more affected by winter kill and predators could possibly work. A lot of APR argument is but you can shoot a doe well in most areas except the SE no you can not. How many new hunter’s or older hunter’s are gonna keep hunting knowing that it may take years to see a legal animal when it takes a couple to any at all now. Think about it. You save a spike or fork then a winter with deep snow and deer are forced to yard and all it takes is one pack of wolves to change the population for many years. Then the APR is out the window anyhow. Enough of my ranting the Alliance State’s that hunter’s are now more happy 4 years into the program. I do not know who they talk to but of the 15 or so people I know that hunt Zone 3 none of them are and some are about to hang it up. By the way I have been letting small bucks walk when I hunt trying for a nicer buck. I have not been successful but accept tag soup as that is my choice not one that was forced on me.

Mwal

Well said Mwal. There are many others who think the same as you. I think Steve and His Whitetail Alliance will find a much harder time getting the APR expanded to other areas in Northern Minnesota. I guess time will tell. I wish they would stop calling APR a Management tool and just call it a BIG BUCK TOOL because that is what it is. There are far better MANAGEMENT tools out there than APR. Their aim and purpose is not a better deer population – Just one with BIGGER RACKS.

Quote:

---

I think Steve and His Whitetail Alliance will find a much harder time getting the APR expanded to other areas in Northern Minnesota.

---

Please show me where I posted that I want APR expanded to the whole state, you won’t find it because I never posted that. Yes I pushed hard for APR in SE MN because that is where I hunt but I am keeping my opinion on APR for the rest of the state to myself. I post the info on APR & info on the DNR public meetings to help keep IDO members informed on what is going on with deer hunting in MN.

Quote:

---

There are far better MANAGEMENT tools out there than APR. Their aim and purpose is not a better deer population – Just one with BIGGER RACKS.

---

“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.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I think Steve and His Whitetail Alliance will find a much harder time getting the APR expanded to other areas in Northern Minnesota.

---

Please show me where I posted that I want APR expanded to the whole state, you won’t find it because I never posted that. Yes I pushed hard for APR in SE MN because that is where I hunt but I am keeping my opinion on APR for the rest of the state to myself. I post the info on APR & info on the DNR public meetings to help keep IDO members informed on what is going on with deer hunting in MN.

---

The original post ( made by yourself ) said We ( the Minnesota whitetail alliance – which I believe you are a member ) want the DNR’s help in getting APR into other area’s of Minnesota. I have read in other post if not by yourself by other members of the whitetail alliance that their desire / goal is to have APR restrictions in ALL of the state of Minnesota. if that is not the case I stand corrected and apologize for my reply. Just so we are all clear on your opinion on APR’s for the rest of the state, why don’t you go ahead and let’s us know. that way we will not have to assume what it is.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

There are far better MANAGEMENT tools out there than APR. Their aim and purpose is not a better deer population – Just one with BIGGER RACKS.

---

“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.

---

If the desire for more trophy racks is not the purpose of APR,s – Then what is it’s purpose? If it is for the purpose of deer management my original statement that there are far better tools stands. From a management standpoint buck to doe ratio is much more important than protection of 1 year old bucks. APR’s does not help this if anything it most likely change the ratio the wrong way. From a genetics standpoint would it not be better to protect older larger racked deer ( know better genetics ) than to protect younger bucks ( unknown genetics )

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I think Steve and His Whitetail Alliance will find a much harder time getting the APR expanded to other areas in Northern Minnesota.

---

Please show me where I posted that I want APR expanded to the whole state, you won’t find it because I never posted that. Yes I pushed hard for APR in SE MN because that is where I hunt but I am keeping my opinion on APR for the rest of the state to myself. I post the info on APR & info on the DNR public meetings to help keep IDO members informed on what is going on with deer hunting in MN.

---

The original post ( made by yourself ) said We ( the Minnesota whitetail alliance – which I believe you are a member ) want the DNR’s help in getting APR into other area’s of Minnesota. I have read in other post if not by yourself by other members of the whitetail alliance that their desire / goal is to have APR restrictions in ALL of the state of Minnesota. if that is not the case I stand corrected and apologize for my reply. Just so we are all clear on your opinion on APR’s for the rest of the state, why don’t you go ahead and let’s us know. that way we will not have to assume what it is.

---

Yes I posted it here but I did not write it, yes I am a member of the Whitetail Alliance, do I think APR will work in other areas of the state? Yes I do. Do I think it will work up north? Let’s just say I am on the fence on APR for northern MN because I do not hunt up there so I feel I am not qualified to say one way or the other if it will work up there.

Totally against mandatory APR and groups trying to force the issue.

Steve
When you say APR’S will work in other areas – to what ends do you refer? You are on record saying it is not a Trophy tool. You have not said it is a effective herd management tool. If the desired purpose is none other than to protect 1.5 year old bucks then we are in agreement, it does and will serve that purpose. I don’t think I’ve ever seen it posted anywhere what the overall goal is for APR’S. Most all of the post and favorable reply’s have been in regards to Bigger Racked deer.

I don’t want the MN Whitetail Alliance telling anyone how to think or what to say. I think we should leave that to the hunters that hunt the APR area. People need to think and speak for themselves. Formulate their own opinion about APR. Not let any private organization do it for them. Also, the DNR doesn’t answer to the voters. The legislators do. And the legislators tell the DNR what to do. The legislator you speak of represents voters in SE MN so I feel he is listening to his constituents. I’m not saying I agree or disagree with APR, but lets be clear about one thing. MN Whitetail Alliance and any other organizations wanting APR to continue is in my opinion a group of trophy hunters looking for more mature whitetails to chase. Not saying its a bad thing, but I for one am not fooled by any of them claiming otherwise.
I grew up in SE MN, still hunt there and will be moving back there in the next 8 months. I have seen huge anterless populations get decimated over the last 5 years because what was once a buck season and an either sex season has now become two 8 day seasons that buck or doe are now taken. Not to mention archery and muzzleloader seasons. You want APR to continue? Then lets bring back some of the does as well. First season, buck only. Second season leave it both sex. Better yet in my opinion, have one season. This year I had 4 bucks that were legal to shoot within bow range. I passed on all of them. I didn’t have a single doe within bow range and for that matter only seen 2. I hunted about 8 days down there this year on property that is historically very good at producing both bucks and does. It’s been tough to kill a baldy over the last three years. The landowner that hunts way more hasn’t seen many does lately either.
To me APR puts a restriction on what bucks can be shot so therefore more people are shooting does that would normally shoot only bucks. It is bringing the buck to doe ratio closer together. APR does not grow bigger bucks. There have been big bucks in SE Mn for a long time. Not to mention St. Louis and Ottertail County historically grow bigger deer. Maybe not more big deer, but there are bigger racked bucks grown there.
Long story short, I think I’ll think for myself on APR and don’t need anyone to take data and throw it my way only to write an email for me and send it out so that APR can take hold in areas that I don’t hunt. DNR is missing the boat on a couple areas, APR is just one tool they can use, but others that need to be considered for deer management.

Steve-Thanks for posting this.
I’m totally on board for adding APR’s to my area(zone 241-one of the highest deer populations in the state).

Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help push the issue.
I agree with the other guys, its probably not a good idea for areas in Northern MN, but central and western central MN would be fantastic areas for it.

Quote:

---

If the desired purpose is none other than to protect 1.5 year old bucks then we are in agreement, it does and will serve that purpose.

---

Good to hear we agree on something!
Yes the main goal of APR is to protect 1.5 year old bucks and yes you are correct APR by itself is not a heard management tool. APR combined with no cross tagging of bucks and only one buck per year per hunter and doing away with intensive harvest in most areas is a herd management tool. Do I hope that some of those 1.5 year old bucks live past 1.5 years old and grow larger racks? I can not lie yes I do, that is just one of the benefits of a balanced heard you will have more bucks living to and past 1.5 years old and most older bucks have larger racks. Do I think that the rules we have in place now are the best heard management tool there is? No I do not, a better heard management tool would be to move the gun season out of the peak rut time but the DNR and most hunters do not want to move the gun season so the rules we have now was the compromise.

You will not be getting my support for APR in west central MN. We have our own management plan on our farm, we don’t shoot young bucks, but I am NOT supporting telling the neighbors what they should shoot on their property.

Quote:

---

You will not be getting my support for APR in west central MN. We have our own management plan on our farm, we don’t shoot young bucks, but I am NOT supporting telling the neighbors what they should shoot on their property.

---

That is fine you are initialed to your opinion, right now all MWA is doing is getting feedback from hunters like yourself to see if there is enough support to grow APR into other areas of the state. The main reason I make these posts for the Minnesota Whitetail Alliance is not to necessarily gain support for APR but to get the info out to as many hunters as possible so they are informed of what is going on with deer hunting in MN. So many times I hear from many deer hunters that say “I did not know about that” this is simply my way of spreading the word.

You can keep your APR in SE MN.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

If the desired purpose is none other than to protect 1.5 year old bucks then we are in agreement, it does and will serve that purpose.

---

Good to hear we agree on something!
Yes the main goal of APR is to protect 1.5 year old bucks and yes you are correct APR by itself is not a heard management tool. APR combined with no cross tagging of bucks and only one buck per year per hunter and doing away with intensive harvest in most areas is a herd management tool. Do I hope that some of those 1.5 year old bucks live past 1.5 years old and grow larger racks? I can not lie yes I do, that is just one of the benefits of a balanced heard you will have more bucks living to and past 1.5 years old and most older bucks have larger racks. Do I think that the rules we have in place now are the best heard management tool there is? No I do not, a better heard management tool would be to move the gun season out of the peak rut time but the DNR and most hunters do not want to move the gun season so the rules we have now was the compromise.

---

The main problem with APR is that the VAST majority of people who are against it, don’t even know a) the rules under which it operates and b) what it’s intended to accomplish, and finally c) what it has no impact on and was never designed/intended to impact.

I’m totally in favor of APR and I would love to see it implemented in Zone 1 on a section-by-section basis. And this is to fix exactly the problem it’s designed to fix: Getting more bucks beyond their second hunting season before they become fair game.

This is not a question of turning Zone 1 or sections into “trophy zones”. This is about recognizing that with the vast hunting pressure in Zone 1, a small group of shoot-em-all meat hunters are limiting the big buck opportunities for all the other hunters. I don’t think most hunters appreciate how few bucks in heavy-pressure zones actually make it through their FIRST hunting season, much less their first and second.

The bottom line in Zone 1 is that the overall deer kill needs to be VASTLY reduced and most likely will be in 2014. In addition to other heard management tools, we may as well be taking fewer young bucks as well because the bottom line is that WAY more deer need to escape the crosshairs in the next 5 years in order to rebuild the herd.

I would like to see APRs as part of an overall strategy to rebuild the heard and to manage heavy-pressure sections where the young buck kill is extreme. This isn’t Texas with 10,000 acre private ranches where the entire heard can be reliably baited and kept on private, pressure-free, and predator-free land. Heard management cannot be accomplished by individual landowner QDM efforts and this has no signifanct impact on overall heard makeup.

I agree, in low pressure sections it isn’t warrented, but in high pressure sections it’s a much needed tool in the overall toolbox.

Just like catch and release fishing, change needs to come. The days where huge game populations allowed individuals to decide what they harvested and this had no impact on the overall population are long gone.

Grouse

What about the high pressure areas with very few deer of any kind right now? Before I would ever consider supporting APR legislation I want to see the overall herd (doe) populations restored and some respect given to these animals in the way of shorter bow seasons and more tag restrictions. Everybody getting a deer every year every place has got to end.

I think management needs to be done very differently in both Mn & Wi. The units are far too large. Public land needs managed different than private land but that would make for a nightmare.

I suspect shorter archery seasons have little affect on deer populations. The % of deer taken by archery hunters is so minimal. But I agree all hunters need to sacrifice to get the deer #s back to a healthy level.

My gut says predator control will be a huge factor.

I agree with you Suzuki. Areas with high hunting pressure and low deer populations should not add APR’s.
In permit areas, 240, 241, 259, 246, 214 would be excellent areas to add APR’s(higher deer populations).
4.6-8.5 deer shot per sq/mile.
The areas from Bemidji to Duluth and everything north would not be a wise idea.

Quote:

---

What about the high pressure areas with very few deer of any kind right now? Before I would ever consider supporting APR legislation I want to see the overall herd (doe) populations restored and some respect given to these animals in the way of shorter bow seasons and more tag restrictions. Everybody getting a deer every year every place has got to end.

---

So if you’re in favor of limiting the OVERALL harvest, why not use APRs to fruther that effort by lowering the harvest of small bucks? Then there is a double benefit, you take the crosshairs off of the small bucks AND you therefore lower the overall harvest as well.

This would be in addition to lowering doe permits, altering seasons, etc.

I totally agree with you. A culture has developed in some areas where there is now the expectation that everyone gets to shoot a deer every year. The harvest MUST be reduced in many areas or we’re going to end up like Wisconsin or Michigan. Everyone has to sacrafice so that is going to have to mean more limitations on what can be shot.

So why not go with APR and get the side benefit of increasing the big bucks, which would stay on the target list regardless?

Grouse

The Minnesota Whitetail Alliance IS NOT calling for the expansion of APR to all areas of MN. MWA supports the expansion of yearling buck protection regulations to areas that:
1. Have deer densities that are at or slightly above goal.
2. Have excessive yearling buck harvest (typically 40% of the buck harvest or better).
3. Is socially supported.

While we have limited data on yearling harvest rates, we have good reason to suspect MN has yearling harvest rates at 50-70%. Every survey done since 2001 (there are about 6 of them) have shown great support for a regulation that limits the harvest of yearling bucks. This is not just certain areas. This is in nearly every part of the state, although I am not aware of a survey that really targets the NE part. I am not sure it would be accepted there.

The only requirement that we are not confident we have met in all areas would be the deer density issue. We would not support yearling buck protection in lottery areas for sure.

I think they should put it to a hunter vote. They can easily do that when you purchase a deer license. Then we would know for sure what the majority thinks.

Quote:

---

I think they should put it to a hunter vote. They can easily do that when you purchase a deer license. Then we would know for sure what the majority thinks.

---

The best arguement against democracy is 10 minutes spent talking to the average voter. — Winston Churchill.

Winston was right. The problem with putting things like this to a vote is that the average hunter doesn’t understand the issues and doesn’t care for anything beyond their own ability to shoot a deer. If the average hunter had anything to say about it, we’d have a 365 day season with a limit of 10 deer per person. And there would be no deer left.

The problem is that people are in favor of anything so long as it only affects the other guy. Most things in life don’t work that way.

Hard, hard times are coming unless we do something soon.

Grouse

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I think they should put it to a hunter vote. They can easily do that when you purchase a deer license. Then we would know for sure what the majority thinks.

---

The best arguement against democracy is 10 minutes spent talking to the average voter. — Winston Churchill.

Winston was right. The problem with putting things like this to a vote is that the average hunter doesn’t understand the issues and doesn’t care for anything beyond their own ability to shoot a deer. If the average hunter had anything to say about it, we’d have a 365 day season with a limit of 10 deer per person. And there would be no deer left.

The problem is that people are in favor of anything so long as it only affects the other guy. Most things in life don’t work that way.

Hard, hard times are coming unless we do something soon.

Grouse

---

Sounds like something the minority would say.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

What about the high pressure areas with very few deer of any kind right now? Before I would ever consider supporting APR legislation I want to see the overall herd (doe) populations restored and some respect given to these animals in the way of shorter bow seasons and more tag restrictions. Everybody getting a deer every year every place has got to end.

---

So if you’re in favor of limiting the OVERALL harvest, why not use APRs to fruther that effort by lowering the harvest of small bucks? Then there is a double benefit, you take the crosshairs off of the small bucks AND you therefore lower the overall harvest as well.

This would be in addition to lowering doe permits, altering seasons, etc.

I totally agree with you. A culture has developed in some areas where there is now the expectation that everyone gets to shoot a deer every year. The harvest MUST be reduced in many areas or we’re going to end up like Wisconsin or Michigan. Everyone has to sacrafice so that is going to have to mean more limitations on what can be shot.

So why not go with APR and get the side benefit of increasing the big bucks, which would stay on the target list regardless?

Grouse

---

Grouse

I don’t know how protecting a class of deer ( 1.5 Yr bucks ) for one year ( Only to be shot the following year – 2.5 Yr old buck ) is doing anything to help the overall health of a deer population. The problem we have in regards to the deer herd is a bad buck to doe ratio and to few Doe’s. APR’s will not help either problem. If anything it will make it worse. Having hunters forced to pass on 1.5 yr old bucks will most likely force them to shoot a doe if they want to harvest a deer. This will lead to bringing the buck to doe ratio too close together and leave even less doe’s. You have got to remember that it only take 1 buck to service many Doe’s. Shooting 1 buck removes 1 deer from the deer herd the follwing year. Shooting a doe removes 2-4 deer out of next years herd. Do the #’s expanding that out for 4-5 years and the #’s are huge. In area with high #’s of doe’s I think that a better answer to deer management is a earn a buck system – That will aid in keeping the ratio more in balance and keep the overall # of deer in check. In area’s with low doe #’s the answer to me is a doe lottery or possibly a bucks only season.

Quote:

---

I think that a better answer to deer management is a earn a buck system

---

Ask any WI hunter how well earn a buck worked in there state, it did not work in WI it will not work in MN.

My father in law summed it up best this past season after he had to let a nice buck walk by at 50 yards because he couldn’t count the points “who would have guessed, 50 years of deer hunting and I couldn’t pull the trigger on a respectable buck like that because I wasn’t sure if it was legal”. Get the gun season out of the rut, have one season state wide and be done with it. Why aren’t these organizations pushing for these?

Quote:

---

Get the gun season out of the rut

---

I agree with you 100 percent but like I have said many times before in these forums Bluffland Whitetails fought for this for years but the DNR will not budge on this so APR was the compromise.

Quote:

---

have one season state wide and be done with it.

---

The first problem with this is that if they did change the seasons to one season state wide allot of guys who do not own their own land would lose places to hunt because a lot of the land owners are farmers who hunt the second season because they do not have time during the first season. As a result a lot of non-land owners would lose places to hunt because the land owners (farmers) would want it for themselves.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I think that a better answer to deer management is a earn a buck system

---

Ask any WI hunter how well earn a buck worked in there state, it did not work in WI it will not work in MN.

---

If you read what I posted it read that earn a buck would be a good management tool in areas where there was a HIGH number of doe’s. Earn a buck would force those hunters who want to hunt a big buck to help thin the herd by shooting a doe or two prior to shooting a buck. Please explane to me how that is not a good deer management tool in high deer number area’s. I think it would serve the purpose far better than APR.