Let antler-point experiment play out

I’ll ante up here Gary. I hunt alone and tag one deer….mine.

Quote:

---

What bugs me worse is this…….

I’m willing to toss down a $100 on a bet.

The bet is this….

That 90% of the APR advocates that are bow-gun-muzzleloader” hunters.

I’m betting that 90% of those in that catagory, that are so heavy on this APR are CROSS-TAGGING DEER.

THEY ARE SHOOTING DEER ON THEIR GF, WIFE, BROTHER, SISTER DEER TAGS, SO THEY CAN JUST KEEP SHOOTING DEER!

---

Last break here at work more later, I can not speak for all APR advocates, but I can tell you that I would be very surprised if there were active Bluffland members that were cross tagging. This is one thing that the active BWA members feel very strongly about that every zone 3 hunter should be only able to take one buck period. This will go a long way in protecting more bucks. I know cross tagging goes on by allot of guys but I do not think you can just lump all APR guys into that category, there are also guys that are against APR cross tagging bucks as well.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

What bugs me worse is this…….

I’m willing to toss down a $100 on a bet.

The bet is this….

That 90% of the APR advocates that are bow-gun-muzzleloader” hunters.

I’m betting that 90% of those in that catagory, that are so heavy on this APR are CROSS-TAGGING DEER.

THEY ARE SHOOTING DEER ON THEIR GF, WIFE, BROTHER, SISTER DEER TAGS, SO THEY CAN JUST KEEP SHOOTING DEER!

---

Last break here at work more later, I can not speak for all APR advocates, but I can tell you that I would be very surprised if there were active Bluffland members that were cross tagging. This is one thing that the active BWA members feel very strongly about that every zone 3 hunter should be only able to take one buck period. This will go a long way in protecting more bucks. I know cross tagging goes on by allot of guys but I do not think you can just lump all APR guys into that category, there are also guys that are against APR cross tagging bucks as well.

---

Steve

I’m still curious if you and other’s in favor of APR think of APR as a Herd management tool? Do you favor the idea because you believe it is better for the overall deer herd or just because you believe it will create bucks with higher scoreing racks. I believe that everyone has a right to their own opinion on this subject. I do get a little upset when people hide behind this on a basis of it as a herd management tool. If this program protects deer with less that 4 pt on 1 side would not even more bucks with poor genetics be left around to continue to pass on poor genetics?

I think Gary is right on with his theories. I have often said the same thing about “Trophy Bucks” when the 140-150 class become common they will not be considered trophy anymore. I think this will only promote more greed and will lead to more woods being leased out for Big Bucks only in both senses of the word.

I think that is bs. I know people that have abused the cross tagging and I’ve chewed their arse for it. They were meat hunters filling their freezers.

Quote:

---

I think that is bs. I know people that have abused the cross tagging and I’ve chewed their arse for it. They were meat hunters filling their freezers.

---

James

That is the 2nd or 3rd time that you have used the Term MEAT HUNTERS in a negative way. This is after you referred to yourself as a meat hunter earlier in this post – So is what you are saying is that anyone who likes to hurt for the purpose of taking a deer to eat and simply enjoying the hunt, in someway less than those who hunt for the purpose of shooting a high scoring rack?

Not really sure how you conclude that I used the term negatively. Someone said you thought 90% of “antler hunters” abused cross tagging. I simply said I don’t agree, the abuse I’ve seen is from people filling their freezers with forkhorns, not people putting 3 trophies on the wall. I don’t have a problem with filling the freezer if its done by the law. I put one in every year. I buy my $12 tag and stick the first doe I can. (This opportunity is not exclusive to me. If you choose not to take advantage of it, its your loss. It’s not a playing field thats not level. Let me repeat that, anyone can buy a bow license and take the extra time in the field.) Then I kick back and hope for a mature buck. If it happens, great. If not it doesn’t ruin my season. You can classify my as a meat hunter, or a trophy hunter, no skin off my back either way.

….and I am pointing out that the majority of hunters are on board with this. If your not…..tough. And in a couple years when this is revisited, and the popularity has gone up and its implemented further? Don’t care for it? Tough, deal with it. Most of us will enjoy it. We are all on a level playing field. If you choose to hamstring yourself and only hunt 9 days. That’s your choice. We all have the same opportunity.

And are we really whining about age discrimination? The guy who tried to say I somehow have bad ethics for wanting to catch big walleyes? Are we really going to throw a fit because little 14 year old joey across the street can shoot a forky and you can’t? If I ever generate that kind of mindset I hope someone……Nevermind. I can’t fathom being mad that a 14 year old who probably has never shot a deer can shoot a 6 pointer thats off limits to me. Ethics……Haha, funny.

If you show that mdha verbage to random hunters across the country who have no knowledge of thus situation and ask them who wrote this? Peta or a deer hunting group? They would laugh and ask if its a trick question.

As far as being dismissed from this conversation, thats probably better reserved for someone who’s original stance on the subject was based on info thats completely false.

Gary you and I have had theses talks before so for anyone who may not already this I know I am not going to change Garys mind on this topic and vise versa, we have agreed to disagree but I will still try and answer some of your questions.

Quote:

---

The problem with this law is in areas of where there isn’t any doe permits, or lottery draw of permits, where a hunter can only shoot a mature buck, when the option of shooting a doe is not there.

People are pissed that they can’t shoot a deer for the meat. They can’t shoot a doe, and the buck has to be an 8-pt.
Then, they don’t see an 8pt, so then what? They go home empty handed.

Let the youth enjoy the “hunt” of shooting anything.
Let the old enjoy the last years of their hunting by shooting anything.
Yes, don’t shoot the little spikes and fork-horns.

But also, don’t handicap the hunter who wants to “HUNT”!!!!!

---

I do feel bad for the person in an area that can not get doe permits, or lottery draw of permits, but with each year APR is here these areas will get better. We all have had years where do not shoot any deer that is just a part of hunting.

Quote:

---

My question for the APR advocates is this:
When the woods are fully full of 120-150 class bucks because of this law, and they are a dime-a-dozen, does that mean they are not trophies anymore?

---

I can not answer that question for anyone else, a trophie is in the eye of the beholder, for me my next buck needs to be larger than 130, that is my largest buck on the wall to date.

Quote:

---

Steve

I’m still curious if you and other’s in favor of APR think of APR as a Herd management tool? Do you favor the idea because you believe it is better for the overall deer herd or just because you believe it will create bucks with higher scoreing racks.

---

There is no dought in my mind that with ARP in place we will see more buck with larger racks, more bucks with lager racks = older bucks, more older bucks = a step in the right direction to a balanced heard. So to answer your question, my answer is both, APR will create more bucks with bigger racks & it will help balance the heard.

Quote:

---

If this program protects deer with less that 4 pt on 1 side would not even more bucks with poor genetics be left around to continue to pass on poor genetics?

---

We are talking about 1 1/2 year old deer, IMO it is darn near impossible to know if a 1 1/2 year old deer has bad genetics or not.

Quote:

---

If you want facts, then let’s dig into facts.
How many Zone 3 deer hunters are tagging more than 1 buck a year and using the “brother-in-law” tag to do it!

---

I agree with you Gary there are too many guys that do this and in my book it is just plan wrong and it is up to everyone else who is following the rules to turn these guys in that is the only way it will stop.

Quote:

---

i don’t know how those in favor of APR can say it’s being used as a herd management tool. There are far better herd management tool for them to use.

---

There is a better herd management tool then APR, it is no secret that Blufflands first choice was to move the gun season out of the peak rut time, but the majority of zone 3 hunters said they did not want the dates for the gun season to change so APR was the compromise.

Quote:

---

Lets call this what it – A BIG RACK management tool!!!!

---

Older bucks do have bigger racks, more bucks living longer = a more balanced heard. So I guess you can say it is both a heard management tool and a big rack management tool, what is wrong with that?

Everyone has there own reasons as to why they hunt deer, some hunt for meat some hunt for a trophy, there is no right or wrong reason. I have to admit that the main reason I hunt is NOT for the meat, I hunt deer because I enjoy the challenge of hunting a mature buck, a 1 1/2 year old buck does not give me that challenge. Yes I do enjoy the venison it is a nice bonus to deer hunting, however if I am being honest with myself and others it is not the first reason that I deer hunt. For the guys that say they deer hunt to only but food on the table ( I am not saying anyone here falls into that category) I am sorry I do not buy into that. After all the expense that goes into deer hunting it would be cheaper to go out and buy a side of beef, yes they may need the meat to put food on the table but there are cheaper ways to do it then deer hunting.

APR is not going to balance the heard all by itself but it is a step in the right direction, we also need to find a way to get hunters to take more does in intensive harvest areas. The common theme I heard from farmers at the town hall meeting last week was that there were way too many does doing damage to there crops. I have heard in some areas the buck to doe ratio is 10 to 1, one farmer said he did not think that ratio was correct, he believes that the buck to doe ratio in his area is closer to 30 to 1. If we are ever going to cut down these numbers we as deer hunters need to take more does plain and simple. How do we get hunters to take more does in areas that allow you more than one deer? I do not know the answer to that question.

The DNR should remove all minimum size and slot limits on fish… The fisherman will naturally decide and distinguish what size is acceptable. If you want 1 1/2 yr old walleyes to eat, great. There will be some walleyes that get through and make it to 20″ or 28″, you will just have to hunt harder for them. It works great for pannies in the metro…

Blackduck Lake produces 2 lb bluegills with a limit of 5. Lake Vermillions avg. walleye size is up 2 inches in 2 yrs since slot change. Metro Bass fishing is mostly catch and release and is some of the best in the country for its climate. Bigger size, yes. Increased fisherman satisfaction, yes. Increased age and quality structure, yes.

Why cant this cross reference to other types of wildlife research? What growth do any of us sportsman (antler hunters, meat hunters, or DNR) achieve by not learning from change, good or bad. NOT A SINGLE ONE OF US can prove that this is NOT a good thing. I am not stating that it is a good thing. But what do you KNOW if you dont try. We KNOW nothing will change if we dont try and good enough for you is not just good enough for everyone. It never will be but when does someone make a sacrifice to possibly makes things better for more people, or for bigger deer, or healthier deer, or hell maybe even happier deer that can live one additional year of a short life.

The far left and the far right gets nowhere any more when will all of us begin to see this. Maybe it should be 3 pt per side, maybe the season should be moved, maybe earn-a-buck, maybe lottery buck, but how little of a change does it have to be to still be change?

I am just happy to have been asked my opinion by the DNR. I will trust their research until the change is proven wrong.

Quote:

---

APR is not going to balance the heard all by itself but it is a step in the right direction, we also need to find a way to get hunters to take more does in intensive harvest areas. The common theme I heard from farmers at the town hall meeting last week was that there were way too many does doing damage to there crops. I have heard in some areas the buck to doe ratio is 10 to 1, one farmer said he did not think that ratio was correct, he believes that the buck to doe ratio in his area is closer to 30 to 1. If we are ever going to cut down these numbers we as deer hunters need to take more does plain and simple. How do we get hunters to take more does in areas that allow you more than one deer? I do not know the answer to that question.

---

I would LOVE to help you and the state out with this problem. I would gladly pass on a state record buck (horns? ) and instead fill my tags with does. As I said in a previous thread about APR there are a few problems, such as landowners who have leased the land to a person/group for buck season and will not/ cannot let hunters in during doe season. Landowners who think they have their own little trophy habitat set up and are “managing” the land to produce bigger bucks for themselves. Non-hunter types who have moved into the area and will not allow even a couple hunters to walk the land to push the deer out of hiding spots.

I really should drive down to the area I hunt (area 343) and take a look at how many buck hunters are out for that season. In the area I hunt for the 3B season it is like my group are the only ones in the field. That in turn leads to the deer getting stirred up less and fewer doe being taken.

I do not care for the APR, simple as that. When a deer flushes from the woods or crests a rise or otherwise comes into view it is not easy, no, darn near impossible to make a positive ID on horn count unless the deer cooperates and stands still for a few moments while you take a long hard look. Is that a point? or a cornstalk behind it? Or a branch? I need to be dang sure of the points before I pull the trigger or I am gonna be in trouble if I walk up and find out I mis-counted.

I agree with the poster who said this will only lead to a worsening of the land access problem. I believe more land will end up in lease for trophy hunters with the cash to do it. The number of safe havens for the deer will increase and it will simply get harder to take a deer.

My area is intensive harvest, too many deer, period. If the state wants to reduce the overall size of the herd they need to address why landowners will not allow access to the land for the doe season. Earn a buck? I would love to take that doe from you, I have seen some posts in this thread that make it sound like some of the horn hunters think of the meat gained in a kill as an afterthought. I was raised in the you eat what you kill school. To me going out purely for the thrill of the hunt and/or kill, not to gain sustanance for myself/family is not right. I just do not get the people who go through all the expense of hunting only to donate the meat to the state for dispersal to food shelves (the lead issue is something else altogether ) I can place a fish back in the water that I catch and be pretty certain that it will recover and live to be caught again. Hunting is a one way street, pull the trigger and you just killed something. To not want the meat of the animal you just killed?

I am not holding my breath that the APR will be stopped before this experiment plays out. I will play by the rules and deal with it. I am concerned though to learn from this or one of the other APR posts that the questionaire about APR was on the DNR’s website and that anyone could submit it that way. This makes me wonder if the pro APR groups could have loaded the results by ensuring it’s members were very aware of it being online. No one in my group of about 12 recieved a survey. I was not aware the survey was on the DNR’s website until I read it in one of these posts. It would stand to reason that someone who holds this issue near and dear to his heart would take active steps to get his point of view across. Was I sleeping at the wheel? Perhaps. I start to think about hunting in Oct. when I need to hit the range and check the zero on my shotgun. If any swinging cod could take the survey online, how can anyone be certain that the results accurately portray the general populace? The more I hear about the results and how the votes in the survey were taken, the more I question it.

Yes, I could just buy a side of beef. Venison tastes better.

APR will not help balance the herd at all, it does not force you to shoot a doe (the problem is to many does) to think increasing the number of bucks is the answer just ask your locial farmer what he thinks.
if guys are realy passionate about balancing the herd they should be pushing for “earn a buck”

according to the DNR survey when hunters were asked about APR as a stand alone question 50.9% were AGAINST it, 49.1% were for it.(see page 5 of the survey results)

also according to the survey 78% of all hunters in zone 3 hunt private land. if there are so many hunters in favor of APR why don’t they just practice it on there own? why do we need this to be a law?

Quote:

---

I have seen some posts in this thread that make it sound like some of the horn hunters think of the meat gained in a kill as an afterthought. I was raised in the you eat what you kill school. To me going out purely for the thrill of the hunt and/or kill, not to gain sustanance for myself/family is not right. I just do not get the people who go through all the expense of hunting only to donate the meat to the state for dispersal to food shelves (the lead issue is something else altogether ) I can place a fish back in the water that I catch and be pretty certain that it will recover and live to be caught again. Hunting is a one way street, pull the trigger and you just killed something. To not want the meat of the animal you just killed?

---

Sorry I totally disagree with this, like I said before we all have different reasons why we hunt, I do not look down on anyone who hunts for different reasons then I do, please show me the same courtesy. I am sure that there are some hunters who only hunt for the meat and I am ok with that, however I am willing to bet there are more hunters who say they are meat hunters but given the chance will shoot a small buck before they shoot a doe. I know this is not a popular statement but if most hunters are honest about it they hunt for more reasons then just the meat, they are just not willing to admit it.

Quote:

---

I just do not get the people who go through all the expense of hunting only to donate the meat to the state for dispersal to food shelves

---

Last deer season I took 5 does in 343, I kept one for myself and my family, the rest I gave away to friends and neighbors who had one or more of there family members who were out of work. With the economy being what it is right now and the over population of the deer heard could you please tell me what is wrong with helping out friends in need?

Quote:

---

APR is not going to balance the heard all by itself but it is a step in the right direction, we also need to find a way to get hunters to take more does in intensive harvest areas. The common theme I heard from farmers at the town hall meeting last week was that there were way too many does doing damage to there crops. I have heard in some areas the buck to doe ratio is 10 to 1, one farmer said he did not think that ratio was correct, he believes that the buck to doe ratio in his area is closer to 30 to 1. If we are ever going to cut down these numbers we as deer hunters need to take more does plain and simple. How do we get hunters to take more does in areas that allow you more than one deer? I do not know the answer to that question.

---

The answer is simple Steve. Intensly restrict the taking of bucks by mandating a lottery system to earn a tag. And that should apply to ALL types of hunting. If a buck license is drawn, the name goes into a bank for three years before that person is eligible to apply for another, regardless of whether the tag drawn was successfully filled and apply this to all of zone 3. Make the only legal time to take a buck of any size other than a fawn buck coincide with the opening of the regular deer season and cease at the last day of the regular season. Every one would be on the same ground that way who has drawn a tag and is able to take a buck. To go further towards getting the doe numbers in check, require that any applicant for a buck license must have filled tags with does in at least two of the years three year down period.

What your proposing is even more restrictive than APRs. No chance hunters would go for that, and even less chance the dnr ever implements something like that.

Who isnt on the same playing field in this? Is there some regulation I missed that is keeping you from buying a bow or muzzleloader license? The only uneven playing field is the one you create by just shotgun hunting. Everyone has the same opportunity to bowhunted. If you decide not to take advantage of it that isn’t my problem, or the dnrs problem to solve. Why on earth, because you make the decision to just gunhunt, should a bowhunter not be able to harvest a buck til gun season.

If I chose to hunt with a shotgun, I can hunt 8 or nine days, depending on the season in zone 3 I might opt to hunt. This is after bow hunters have had over 6 weeks to pluck seriously large deer ahead of me having a chance….or any other gun hunter in zone three that is hearing how all this point hoopla will benefit everyone. It seems to me that the only ones who will reap any reward will be….bowhunters.

Now, after the two gun seasons in zone three end…remember I can choose one….the bowhunters can continue thier quest for huge horns as can the bp people.

My suggestion is that all buck hunting opportunities start on the first day of the regular deer season…the one where everyone can hunt regardless of what they hunt with….and end on the last day of the regular deer season. Does, those terrible animals that the dnr wants to get rid of so bad, can of course be taken prior to and after the end of regular deer season until the end of the archery late season. Basically, you’ll get your large bucks because people would have to do a lottery to be chosen for a tag no more often than once every three years and would be required to do their ethical part in maintaining the herd by taking at least two does during the 3 year down time they would have to await.

Basically Jim you seem to have no problem with the dnr and special interest pressure to put unreasonable limitations on hunters you don’t even know. I guess in light of that I should have no problem supporting any group willing to push some restrictions the other way.

There is always a reasonable resolve to this debate. Cancel this stupid 4 point rule [fire the dnr schmuck and his cronies that worked for it even] and put the hunting back the way it was. People wanting to shoot big horns every year are free to do just that. People looking down their sights at a 6 point can decide if that is a deer they want. All’s good in the woods. The big deer are out there….see them shot every year for years BEFORE all this crap got thrust under the noses of those who don’t support this bs. People wanting big deer have to do what has been done for forever….hunt them. Thats why its called hunting. If that ain’t good enough, call a game farm.

I’ve got my letters drafted already to be sent to some lawmakers. That’s where I feel things will get resolved.

Tom, you have every right to pick up a bow and have the first crack at the deer that the rest of the bowhunters do. You are creating the uneven playing field for yourself by opting not to do so. The dnr is not going to go with what your are saying because they have offered you the option of first crack and you are choosing to not take advantage of it.

As far as who is benefiting…..how many bucks are shot with a gun vs a bow? Seems to me with the amount of bucks shot every year with a shotgun, that logic points to plenty of gun hunters who will benefit.

Regarding pursueing the matter through the law? I seriously hope after you called upon my fishing ethics for liking big walleyes, that you aren’t taking the age discrimination as your angle. I cant believe someone would actually throw a hissy fit because little joey can shoot a 6 pointer that you can’t. I mean c’Mon….

I can also turn your last statement around. There are plenty of legal deer to shoot, even with APRs. Go HUNT them. And had you done your homework you would know that after year 1 buck harvest rates go back to where they were before APRs because for every little 6 pointer you can’t shoot, there is a 6 pointer that lived from last year that is now a 2 year old buck! Year one is the sacrifice. The only difference now is there will be a bunch of 2 year olds getting shot rather than yearlings.

And just remember tom, the majority of hunters want to pat the dnr on the back for bringing change, not fire anyone! And to take it a step further, there are A LOT of guys out there that don’t support APRs but are DISGUSTED at how the mdha and a lone representative have tried to railroad the dnr. It’s a joke and I can guarantee that Draskowski will face the same fate as Chaudary did when he pulled his stunts. People will NOT stand for this.

Guarantee….big word. We’ll see. Sure a good thing you don’t have far to fall.

……says the guy who is going to take up court case because 14 year old little joey can shoot a forky and you can’t. I’d be embarrassed to tell people that.

Have you been following along????? He already is facing it. Senator miller wants nothing to do with situation with the heat Draskowski has gotten, certainly not after that meeting last week in winona when the mdha was made to look like clowns.

Rant, rant, rant….

Quote:

---

according to the DNR survey when hunters were asked about APR as a stand alone question 50.9% were AGAINST it, 49.1% were for it.(see page 5 of the survey results)

---

That is so close to 50/50 it is not funny, each year that APR is in place you will see those numbers go up in favor of APR because more hunters will see more mature bucks it happened in Missouri & Pennsylvania and it will happen here in MN providing we let it run its three year trial period. All we are asking is to give APR a chance to see if it works, if after the three years it does not work all of the non supporters of APR can say I told you so.

James & Tom,
you two guys are never going to agree on this topic, nor will Tom & I agree on this, we could keep going round & round on this but what would be the point? For the most part the replies in this thread have been civil and respectful and I for one respect the hell out of that. Tom believe it or not I do respect your opinion on this topic, I do not agree with you but I do respect your opinion. Maybe you and I and James and you should do what Gary and I did, agree to disagree and who know maybe after 3 years of APR you just might change your mind and decide that APR is not such a bad thing after all

Quote:

---

Rant, rant, rant….

---

Haha, pot…..meet kettle.

Steve, in that survey, the majority of people were for some sort if protection for young bucks. When broken down into which way hunters would like to go, APRs got just under 50%, cross tagging was 2nd most popular. The rest of the “vote” was split to EAB, moving the seasons back, ect ect. That’s the full story……

Quote:

---

also according to the survey 78% of all hunters in zone 3 hunt private land. if there are so many hunters in favor of APR why don’t they just practice it on there own? why do we need this to be a law?

---

can any one give me a GOOD answer to this question?
the DNR could not when i asked.

Quote:

---

Steve, in that survey, the majority of people were for some sort if protection for young bucks. When broken down into which way hunters would like to go, APRs got just under 50%, cross tagging was 2nd most popular. The rest of the “vote” was split to EAB, moving the seasons back, ect ect. That’s the full story……

---

Yup I should have worded that better, over 70 something percent wanted to protect young bucks and it was pretty much split down the middle on how to do it.