Repeal of the 4-point rule

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Steve I will put a helmet on with you

---

Thanks Jason I appreciate that, but just like me I do not think you are going to need a helmet either.

---

I used to hunt zone 3 and will never return to that zone again because of all that crap that has been going in that zone ever since Lou Cornicelli became Minnesotas Big Game Manager.

Minnesota made a huge mistake hiring him away from Colorado.

A little history here we used to hunt elk in NW Colorado, 3 trips in a 7 year period. When Lou was Big game manager in Colorado they had antler point rstrictions,the restrictions were 5 pts on elk 4pts on deer, every trip we would see about 100 elk in a hunt, not bad you say almost all were cows and calves, with only 1 spike seen seen per 3 people in our party.

We hunted an area that my friend had hunted 3-4 previous times and he had shot 2 small 5x5s out of this same area.

Now I have a question that begs to be answered why would a certain Wildlife artist move to Minnesota at about the same as Lou Cornicelli, when you have wonderful scenery and beatiful wildlife in Colorado? My answer to help Lou Cornicelli push his agenda in Minnesota.

My general concensus is antler pt restrictions do not work at some point you get to where all you are going to have is small bucks just like Colorado has. One of the big issues in the area where CWD was found is land Access, too many people own 5-10 acres and you have a very large liscened shooting preserve, which also should be illegal, along with raising Elk, deer, muzzleloaders like inlines should be forced to hunt the regular firearms season, they are not primitive weapons anymore, and thank you to this state rep for saying no net gain to land acquistion, this state is in enough financial trouble and we do not need anymore land taken off the tax roles, so please Micheal and Lou go to another state and push your agenda on some other schmucks.

Quote:

---

My general concensus is antler pt restrictions do not work at some point you get to where all you are going to have is small bucks just like Colorado has.

---

Comparing Colorado to MN is like comparing apples to oranges not the same habitat at all. SE MN has everything it needs to grow more mature bucks if we just give them the chance to do so, APR has worked in Missouri and Pennsylvania and it will work in MN if given the chance to prove itself. APR in MN is a three year pilot program all we are asking is to give it a chance to work, if after three years it does not work all the na Sayers can tell me I told you so.

Quote:

---

SE MN has everything it needs to grow more mature bucks if we just give them the chance to do so….

---

Under these rules SE MN also needs its hunters to understand any Buck with 4 on a side is not a “shooter.”

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

SE MN has everything it needs to grow more mature bucks if we just give them the chance to do so….

---

Under these rules SE MN also needs its hunters to understand any Buck with 4 on a side is not a “shooter.”

---

I could not agree with you more Tom
I think after three years of ARP more MN hunters will come to accept it the same way Missouri and Pennsylvania deer hunters have.

Here is a letter that has been sent out to MN Representatives from Jack Peck a Board member on BWA. Jack has graciously given me permission to share the letter here with IDO

After attending the hearing regarding the Fish and Game Bill # HF984, I felt that this
information needed to reach the committee. I only wish that I would have had it with me
for testimony.
Representative Drazkowski is misinformed regarding his statement proclaiming a
majority of hunters in zone 300 were against the new regulations which went into affect
in the 2010 deer hunting season. Below is the link to the results of a survey that was
sent out to 3000 random zone 300 deer hunters. On page #8 it is clear that 65% of the
respondents that had an opinion enacting regulations for mature deer were supportive. It
shows 56% in support for eliminating cross-tagging of bucks. Dr. Lou Cornicelli from the
DNR can explain the “significance” factor for you as I am not scientific enough to do so.

http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/recreation/hunting/deer/2009_zone3survey.pdf

Shortly after the DNR survey, Minnesota Deer Hunters Association (MDHA) sent out
their own survey to all of their zone 300 members. I can only guess that it was an attempt
to discredit the DNR survey because of their beliefs that favoritism was shown toward
the new regulations. I again have the link to their survey below. On page #5, question #14
you can see that even their constituents were more supportive than opposed to both “buck
management” and to the elimination of cross-tagging.

http://www.mndeerhunters.com/images/results.pdf

We all know that Representative Drazkoski is representing MDHA or at least the Bluff
Country Chapter of MDHA. Zone 300 has approximately 50,000 deer hunters. MDHA
membership makes up about 1% of these hunters. If 44% (% shown in graph) of them
are in favor of protecting bucks, and the DNR survey shows 65% support, then can
somebody tell me how they can statistically say that there is a majority of hunters against
the new regulations?
By the way, MDHA had to vote on a proposition at their annual meeting this year to
implement Antler Point Restrictions (APR’s) state-wide. Again the link is below. Scroll
down to “important resolutions”, and it is item #6.

https://mail.google.com/mail/?hl=en&shva=1#inbox/12f2ae3c1f3128b7

Now because it isn’t their idea they bash into the ground. This whole tantrum is
really based on the fact that the Bluff Country Chapter of MDHA is against any kind of
change and especially from another deer group. Bluffland Whitetails Association worked
with the Minnesota DNR for 10+ years getting rid of outdated practices in wildlife
management and adopting new strategies for the future. All of this work has been done
with complete transparency and no “back door” politics as our opposition chooses to
use. We must not let this Bill put the authority of setting the season dates in statute. Now
and in the future the DNR must have the flexibility to adjust season dates as needed for
biological reasons. The MDHA group consistently uses “mis” and “dis” information to
achieve their agenda, often referring to us as a “trophy” group and by implying that the
DNR does us special favors. We provide scientific information to back up our stance, not
disinformation like I think that I have shown our opponents use. We are only asking that
you allow the 3 year trial period of the regulation changes to proceed and let the hunters
decide if they want to keep them at the conclusion.

I apologize for the long read but it’s important that you know the facts.

John Peck

OK here is your chance to have your opinions heard on APR, Senator Jeremy Miller is seeking public input on APR. below is another letter that was sent to me from Jack Peck with the info on the meeting. I will be there will you?

Quote:

---

Minnesota for APR

Thank you to everyone who has supported our efforts to protect APR in Minnesota. Recently, a few of us have been able to meet with some of the Representatives and Senators in person and they have stated that they do get your messages and they are impressed with the grassroots effort we have been able to put forth. We must continue to push on though. If you haven’t heard, Senator Jeremy Miller is seeking public input on APR. Below is the information on that event.

Here is the information on the townhall meeting:

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

6:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.

Minnesota State College

Southeast Technical Student Center

1250 Homer Road

Winona, MN

Park in the rear lot and enter door H or J

In case anyone is interested in meeting in the Twin Cities area, I will be driving down there and can take 3 or 4 people with me. Email me at [email protected] if you are interested.

Also, continue to recruit more people to sign the petition. It would be great to have 500 signatures by next Wednesday!

Thanks again for your support!

Ted Wawrzyniak

---

Steve – I appreciate all your efforts to stay in the fight. I think I have made a half dozen replies here to not even post them. Its unfortunate that a few politicians have done so well to get everyone believing that the DNR and BWA have this hidden agenda.

If any of you believe this to be true, just call or email them asking for their help in arguments for APR. I have, and you will get the same response that I have.

” It’s not my place to get in the middle. My role in this was to shepherd the project and make a recommendation, which I did. I stand by our process, it’s inclusiveness, and ultimately the recommendations we made. It’s up to others to deal with the politics. In my capacity as (Name not Mentioned), I just can’t.”

The people who did the research on this subject are not the people pushing the agenda and because of that I stand by them as being fair, and looking out for the resource, rather than looking out for the interest of someone who flat out told me he buys one pack of bullets and license on Wed. night before deer season.

I believe and promote that we need more hunters in MN to keep our passion alive, so I am not saying anything against the person who does not think about deer hunting until 2 days before season, but I also do not believe that they should be the same person who decides the best way to manage the resource.

Come on fisherman! You cant tell me that you dont believe minimum size limits and slot limits have not helped our fisheries! If you disagree, go up to Lake Vermillion prior to 2007 and I will continue to go up to Rainy Lake.

I fully support this program for the 3 year trial. After that it should be left up to a VOTE BY THE HUNTERS in the Areas effected…..NOT the DNR or the Non-Hunting Politicians…..

I am glad that the non APR supporters are starting to speak up.

I can not make the meeting because of work. I did email my NON support to APR to

[email protected]

Thank you for the heads up.