Let antler-point experiment play out

Quote:

---

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.

---

The problem there is that the 78% of those land owners do not have enough acres of there own for APR to work. In order for APR to work or any kind of QDM you need to have all your neighbors working along with you or you need to own hundreds of acres.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

The problem there is that the 78% of those land owners do not have enough acres of there own for APR to work. In order for APR to work or any kind of QDM you need to have all your neighbors working along with you or you need to own hundreds of acres.

---

So let me see if i under stand this correctly.
on the one hand you have a land owner who “CHOOSES” to practice APR.
on the other hand you have a land owner who “CHOOSES” not to practice APR.
so the land owner who is pro APR realizes he does not own enough of his “OWN” land for it to be effective so he thinks the goverment (yes the DNR is part of our goverment) should come in and tell the second land owner he can no longer “CHOOSE” and has to start practicing APR like his neighbor.
does this about sum it up or am i missing somthig?

[quoteSo let me see if i under stand this correctly.
on the one hand you have a land owner who “CHOOSES” to practice APR.
on the other hand you have a land owner who “CHOOSES” not to practice APR.
so the land owner who is pro APR realizes he does not own enough of his “OWN” land for it to be effective so he thinks the goverment (yes the DNR is part of our goverment) should come in and tell the second land owner he can no longer “CHOOSE” and has to start practicing APR like his neighbor.
does this about sum it up or am i missing somthig?

---

That about sums it up Slack. This situation was spearheaded by special interests to benefit only a few. The sales tactic used involves convincing those who are against it that in the end everyone will benefit, while in fact if you CHOOSE only to hunt with a shotgun, you are going to see 6 weeks of heavy headed deer taken ahead of any season you can hunt. If the deer are gone when your season rolls around, where is the benefit to you?

And if you do see a buck you want that amybe isn’t big by someone else’s standards, you have to let it pass…no decision making on your part at all.

Now we here oof license increases. Why not just access a trophy fee to all bucks over 7 points now that the woods will be full of them monster?

There are better ways to achieve this crap without telling hunters they don’t have any choices anymore.

I’m not sure how many times it has to be pointed out that the majority of zone 3 hunters are behind it. Can you please stop pretending that some small vocal minority is all who is on board with it.

And enough if the bowhunters have a headstart garbage. I don’t have some special permit saying I get to hunt earlier. I choose to. You choose not to. Pick up a bow!!@@ If your so worried about it pick up a bow and join in. How many bucks are shot with a gun vs s bow each year? Quit peddling the garbage that only a few will benefit when you know darn well how many bucks are shot with a gun every year.

And the choices garbage? I say garbage because you have choices that you are either ignoring or choose not to take advantage of. Pick a bow up and quit the rant. It’s pretty simple.

James,
you keep using this term “MAJORITY” like it was a landslide for APR. if you look back a few posts you will notice i gave hard numbers with references that you seem to be ignoring. in stead of just repeating your self why don’t you give some hard numbers with references to back your claims.

I know the numbers slac from the survey. The majority was for protection for young bucks. When asked what form would you like to see, APRs received roughly half the support followed by banning cross tagging, moving the seasons back, earn a buck, and buck lottery. You didn’t tell the rest of the story. The majority are for some sort of protection, and APRs were the most popular form at 50%. Now if your looking at another survey, I apologize. I am referring to the one the dnr used to make the decision.

Quote:

---

James,
you keep using this term “MAJORITY” like it was a landslide for APR. if you look back a few posts you will notice i gave hard numbers with references that you seem to be ignoring. in stead of just repeating your self why don’t you give some hard numbers with references to back your claims.

---

We knew the hard numbers before you posted them slack, 50.9% were against it, 49.1% were for it, like I said before that is almost split down the middle. So what are you guys so afraid of that each year of the 3 years that APR is in place it will gain in popularity and you guys will be in the minority? I can guarantee you that is what will happen if we keep APR for the next two years.

Hope everyone is aware that special interest groups are already coming to county board meetings pushing SE Minnesota as the next “Out of State” hunting paradise and that the county’s should work with this group to promote out of state hunters. Although I believe there are benefits to antler restrictions, I do believe the average hunter (AND KIDS) will lose the opportunity to hunt due to these special interest groups leasing the land that currently is available. I cannot blame the landowners for bypassing opportunities to benefit financially….but I can blame the special interest groups that want to promote as a “pay to hunt” area. If anyone does not believe these special interest groups intentions, PM me and I can forward County Board Minutes.

I believe it. Like I said earlier in this post APR breeds greed and Antler envey.If you dont believe it then just look to our east Buffalo Co. WS. it has great Trophy bucks there but try to access any property in that county and you better have deep pockets. So I think we should all becarefull what we wish for. I would like to hear more from the gentleman who suggested if 90 percent of all property in SE Mn is privatly owned ,then property owners should decide if they want to practice APR or not.Sounds very logical to me. Since when is it the DNR’s job to raise B&C bucks. I think it is DNR’s job to manage a healthy huntable sustainable herd period. Nothing more nothing less.Besides Mn. DNR does still sells Deer Hunting licenses not Trophy Buck licenses.

Here is yet another well=worded reply to this quandry from another site….

I think you pretty much answered your own question. Things are pretty good around here, so why mess with it. I’d have to assume your the type of person that when your car is running great, that is the time to re-build the engine. Nothing different here. My question is…If this is about improving the herd, why not conduct this little experiment in an area of the state that has a problem with the deer herd?

Your survey results that you refer to were not an accurate sampling. Limited numbers were actually sent out and the rest relied on people who knew where to look on the internet. The DNR did not make this survey highly visible. Believe it or not, only a small percentage of outdoorsman take time to visit online forums. That is the only way I heard about the survey. Of course, when I did hear about the survey it was brought up by someone from Bluff Valley Whitetails who was encouraging everyone to respond in favor of it. Heck, the property owner where I hunt wasn’t even aware of the rule until the day he bought his licence and read the regs. Pissed off is an understatement. A better way to survey hunters would have been to ask the question at the time licences were issued the season before.

Now your questioning our ability to make decisions on which deer to shoot. We actually had that ability before…now we have big brother telling us which ones to shoot. There is nothing wrong with shooting a small buck. There is nothing wrong with shooting a large buck with poor genetics. If it is ethically wrong to shoot those deer, then why is it legal in other parts of the state? You want proof of anything, you show me proof that there was a problem in zone 3 and that changes were needed to correct a problem. No one can show me that proof. The only proof out there is that zone 3 has too many deer. So lets make a rule that restricts what can be taken.

You will never here one common answer to why not APR because there are so many reasons. But if you insist on one reason it is that there was no need for this. The only reason for APR is the hope that you can harvest big antlers every year. I know this is hard to comprehend, but not everyone wants to shoot a deer with big antlers. They taste like crap. I hunt for the food. I hunt for the enjoyment of the time outdoors. I don’t hunt so that I can decorate my home and brag to my buddies.

What really torques me is that my 11 year old boy shot his first deer last year. It was a buck with fewer than 4 points on one side. Yes, for youth it is still legal, but it left him questioning if his first deer was not good enough. He was happy at first, but later was almost in tears when he thought I wouldn’t be proud of him because it didn’t have the proper number of points. I had to explain to him that if the state didn’t have this little experiment, I would have gladly shot that deer….

I don’t give a rip what any legislator’s political direction is, but when two of them step up and ask why not everyone is smiling like donkeys about the new changes, I think they are right in trying to resolve things. These twwo are doing what we elect them to do. The one legislator metioned from northern MN who tried to convince the dnr to get a slot on a walleye lake that he had property on is no better than any legislator who has had his finger in the process of getting the 4 point rule implimented.

The subject of APR will split deer hunters for years.

I do agree with Tom that it is all about growing larger bucks.

We all hunt deer for different reason and always will.

To some it is that large racked buck that they can brag about. Been there, done that.

Yes, I lik to shoot large bucks just like anyone else but it does not make or break my season.

For me, let me shoot some does for good eating and I am a happy deer hunter.

I do not know if we should start to tell others how they should hunt or for that matter, tell them what they can shoot and what is a good kill.

I know a fellow that has asked me many times why I shoot does and I told him I do not have to shoot a lerge buck to have a great season.

Forget about the APR and lets all go hunting and enjoy the time outdoors.

No legislator had a hand in implementing APRs. The proper channel, the dnr, had the hand. Which is why many people who OPPOSE APRs are not happy with a legislator having any kind of hand in this. It is a horrible precedent to be setting. Just think about it Tom, how would you feel if the next legislator came along and introduced a bill to close the walleye season on the river for the spawn because some group didn’t like it. And the next legislator makes it illegal to harvest a bass. Then the next one decides to put a slot limit on pike on the lake he lives on. And the next one makes the state walleye limit 2, and they can’t be over 17 inches long. You are going to tell me you want things headed in that direction?? That is why Chaudary is no where to be heard of, and why even people who oppose APRs are contacting Draskowski in an uproar. It’s also why senator Miller wants nothing to do with it. And not by coincidence, the senate version of this bill has no mention of the repeal of APRs in it. Most of our congressman know their heads will be on a platter if they pursue such matters

Reguarding the polling? Anyone who knows anything about polling knows you do not need to poll the entire population to get an accurate picture of what you are looking for. People asked this question at the town hall meetings last spring and Lou said the same thing. Polling 3,000 random hunters is more than enough to get an accurate picture of the situation.

Want proof something was wrong? Go look at the numbers tom. MN far and away shoots a bigger percentage of 1.5 old bucks each season than any other state in the nation. It’s public knowledge, go take a look. And again, if would do a little more research, you would know that beyond year 1, buck harvest numbers go back to what they were prior to the reg. For every yearlings you can’t shoot this year, there was a yearlings last fall that this next fall will be a legal 2 year old. Which goes back to the title if thus thread. Let the 3 years play out. Because a lot if people that are torked over last season, will see this season that things will not be much different than before. There will be as many legal bucks this fall as there were in 2009, just now you will see a bunch more 2 year olds out there. Missouri put in APRs last decade. The original approval rating was about 35%. After 5 years that went to 65% and 34 more counties were added to the original 29 and the approval continues to rise. So again, let the 3 years play out. What are you afraid of? If 5 more years are added, and more of minnesota is added, its because the trial worked and people liked it! Please tell me how approval rising and more people being satisfied with there hunt is a bad thing?!

James, to me it does not matter if I shoot a buck with 1 antler or a 12 pointer or a yearing doe.

I go out to enjoy the hunt and harvest a deer for eating.

I realize we have slot limits for fish and we now have APR so some can shoot a larger buck.

I just do not know if it is fair for the state to tell hunters that you can shoot this but not that due to the fact that a few want to harvest a larger antlered buck every season.

If I never shot another buck again in my remaining years of bow, gun or muzzleloader hunting, no biggie to me.

I was one of those that had to shoot the largest buck or I did not shoot a deer at all.

Now, I pick out a good eating deer and thats what I harvest. I am a much happier hunter now than in those years when I let deer go due to the fact that some would have thought my buck was a small one.

When I do get the itch to hunt a larger buck, then it is off to a private family farm on the Milk River in Montana that will satisy my need for a larger racked deer.

Last fall was the first time in 23 years that I shot a deer in Mn. I muzzleloader hunted here with a friend.

Mn has so many rules and regs for deer hunting that 23 years ago I said the heck with it and started to hunt in ND.

APR will just add to all the rules and regs of what one can harvest. I would rather harvest what I want and not have someone tell me what I can and cannot shoot.

I guess we cannot all have it our way so I just changed states.

Totally respect everything you have said. I’m just going to point out one thing. You said so a few can harvest a large antlered buck every season. Remember, its not “a few” in zone 3. Surveys have shown most people in zone 3 want to see some sort of protection for young bucks.

Myself? I wasn’t sure when talk of APRs came up that I could back something like that. As I did some research, the one thing that started to sway me was in places they were implemented, people loved it and support skyrocketed after a few years of seeing the results. I just want to see 3 years play our like it wasvsuppose to. If for some reason zone 3 is different than anywhere else it was implemented, and people don’t Like it? Get rid of it. The hard part is done. Year 1 is the sacrifice. But you have people that can’t get past year 1 to see that here on out, buck harvest goes back to what it was. There will be as many legal bucks this fall as 2 years ago. I don’t think people realize that. Or they simply refuse to look ahead and acknowledge this fact. People just can’t get past that in year 1 they had to pass on a 6 pointer. You have to let the 3 years go by to see that year 1 is a sacrifice, beyond that your opportunity to harvest a buck are just the same as they were before year 1. When people actually see their hunting the next couple years, they will realize they like the results. It has happened in EVERY other instance APRs were put in. People like the end result.

Quote:

---

Just think about it Tom, how would you feel if the next legislator came along and introduced a bill to close the walleye season on the river for the spawn because some group didn’t like it. And the next legislator makes it illegal to harvest a bass. Then the next one decides to put a slot limit on pike on the lake he lives on. And the next one makes the state walleye limit 2, and they can’t be over 17 inches long. You are going to tell me you want things headed in that direction?? That is why Chaudary is no where to be heard of, and why even people who oppose APRs are contacting Draskowski in an uproar…..

---

First off, any closure on the river would take an agreement between MN and WS. Even if they agreed to have a closed walleye season there, it wouldn’t get me all knotted up. You maybe, not me. And again on your pal Chuadry, what he attempted to do was in no way short of what has been done here…political manuevering of the dnr because the head of the divisin thinks like you do….not very well and very self supporting.

Quote:

---

Reguarding the polling? Anyone who knows anything about polling knows you do not need to poll the entire population to get an accurate picture of what you are looking for. People asked this question at the town hall meetings last spring and Lou said the same thing. Polling 3,000 random hunters is more than enough to get an accurate picture of the situation.

---

According to the support we “antis” are showing here in this thread, apparently you are wrong in assuming 3000 contacts are a broad enough area. As was mentioned, select persons were contacted, NOT the whole of the hunting public.

Quote:

---

Want proof something was wrong? Missouri put in APRs last decade. The original approval rating was about 35%. After 5 years that went to 65% and 34 more counties were added to the original 29 and the approval continues to rise.

---

It sounds like Missouri is just the place for you. Move. I’m sure if UPS hasn’t fired you already, they could arrange for a transfer. Instead of assuming I don’t have any idea of what I am talking about, why don’t you step back and look at how what you are saying might be biased so much you can’t see some FACTS brought out for you to visit. IF you work for UPS yet, you’d be one to argue the merits of UPS only because they have you on their payroll. We have FedEx and the USPS that do a great jobs too. I can ship stuff up to 70 pounds by USPS for $5.20 while the same size box by UPS is going to nick me $8.00 plus bucks. Now UPS might suit my needs in another instance, but I am still going to look at what other carriers might do to save my dollars. You are so blind and tunnel-visioned that NOTHING can be seen other than what you want to see. Any fool can hop on a bandwagon, but it takes an intelligent decision to get off. And I am staying where I am at. Forget all of the out-of-town references to this crap working here. You have no proof that this is going to work here. APR’s work where the hunting pressure is controlled …..think 5,000 acres in Montana. Do you think think these deer put chains on their legs when the hunters hit the woods and wait for someone to lollygag along to shoot them. These are free ranging animals in an area where hunter population is about as high as heck. Home range is where ever their feet land after people hit the woods.

You don’t have a clue as to how big a following might get drummed up here that maybe will get this crap reversed. You can scream and hollar all you want, call me names, make you blind assumptions, I don’t care. I am not going to make this an argument. If I choose to hunt this year, I have a place on private. Maybe all this APR stuff will simply shut you out of hunting other than the public lands. Then you can tell us all how crow tastes. Until then, I have my own mission. You have yours.

I will agree that after 2-3 years, one should see nicer bucks running the woods. But there is no prrof to that for this area and hunting conditions.

If that is truely what the majority of the deer hunters wnat in Zone 3, then I guess try it. I only hope that the program is set up so the younger kids hunting can still shot a deer of their choice.

We are losing enough young kids who enjoy the outdoors and to now limit them to what they can shoot in my eyes would be wrong.

I have the B&C and P&Y bucks and a few other state book bucks. That did matter to me alot years ago but I guess my need for a larger antlered deer is gone.

As I stated before, for me it is no big deal if I whack a doe and do not shoot a buck again.

I would also think that if the percentage of hunters in zone 3 would like to see APR, why don’t they simply not shoot the younger buck’s? If the percentage is that high, this would work by self control.

The APRs do not apply to youth.

Not just nicer bucks, but just as many legal bucks and opportunities to harvest them as there were before…….

If you have about 40-45% of the people in zone 3 that shoot the first rack they see, and you have I believe, off the top of my head now I can’t remember if its 30,000 or 50,000 hunters in zone 3, you have a large number of yearlings still being shot. It was about 2400 less bucks shot last year with the reg vs 2009. And if you figure 45% of 30,000 not shooting 6 pointers, you should see a couple thousand less bucks shot. When you have the pressure SE MN has and 40-45% whacking the first antlered you see …….well you see a state that shoots off the largest percentage of yearlings in the US. As I said, and you said, try it. We just want the 3 years to play out. The dnr implemented APRs, they as our wildlife overseers, should have the judgement on the future beyond 3 years. Not a lone representative summoned by a club of 300 members of which a lot of the members don’t even have an issue with the 3 year trial.

As I stated before, it all comes down to some that only want to shoot a larger buck. The smaller ones don’t work for them.

The smaller ones are by far much better to eat. Antlers chew tough.

The 2 sections we have in North Dakota are good for buck hunters. We may take 2 bucks a season of the place. The majority of what we shoot are does and the bucks run free to roam about.

Our neighbors do the same thing so our bucks do very well but very few get shot.

I’m guessing a large difference between zone 3 and where you hunt is the pressure. Like I said MN kills a bigger percentage of yearlings than any other state. I myself don’t shoot yearlings because I’ve never had s problem putting a doe in the freezer. I had to change things up a bit last year because where I normally hunt was a 1 deer area. I simply put a little legwork in and got permission in a 2 deer area and got my doe. Some people look at the opportunities given to them and take advantage of them, some people just sit back and pi$$ and moan.

I for years hunted in zone 4 and to be honest, got tired of the doe permit’s, buck tags and all the 2 day and 4 day weekend hunts. Just to many rules to go out and hunt a deer.

So, I left the state for a better hunt. The land we now enjoy has next to no pressure and our neighbors have next to no pressure also.

I can say I’m jealous. The 80 acres I hunt, the neighbor and I have the only permission. I shot a decent 8 point last year with my bow. We find him 10 yards from a trespassers ground blind. When I gun hunt out there I spend more time watching Orange from trespassers than watching deer. And if they don’t trespass they just patrol the property line. It’s really not fun. I think I landed some permission to bowhunt here in the city limits of Rochester. I might just bowhunt during the gun season. Probably safer to. Although now that people have to identify what they are shooting at, the danger factor probably isn’t ad high either. Another side note, its th first spring in a while in which I didn’t find a dead buck from the fall before. It’s only logical there will be less gutshot and wounded deer since you can’t blaze away at a deer 100 yards out running full boar just because he has an antler.

Quote:

---

When I do get the itch to hunt a larger buck, then it is off to a private family farm on the Milk River in Montana that will satisy my need for a larger racked deer.

---

Tom how much is a non resident tag in Montana, can you buy it over the counter or is it a draw?

It’s a draw and it is not cheap.

In the past years there has been a landowner sponsored tag and with that, one can get a tag much easier.

Yes James, not to change the subject but the trespassing is a sad deal in every state. They ruin things for many people.

We have them in our area in North Dakota and some may believe I am a jerk for doing this but we turn them in as fast as we see them. The CO there and I are good friends and we do catch quite a few each year and they press full charges as hard as we can.

I do not go for or can I take a trespasser.

I don’t really feel like a fight today, but how many people here saw the survey?

I know I did, and I struggled filling it out. I felt it was biased towards antler point restrictions, and was not a fair survey of findings. Now my memory is not what it used to be, but I would love to reread it, and see if I have a bed memory, or if it was slanted towards this result.

I believe this is what you are looking for Brent.

Click Here for Link

For what it is worth I do wish they would exempt seniors and the handicapped along with the youth. BWA did ask / recommend this before APR became a reality, why they were not included I do not know.

Thanks for the link Steve.

While I personally do not like APRs for the very basic reason that I dislike government telling me what to do, after reading the survey again (I was one of the random who took it), I must have put my personal feelings into my memories of the survey.

I think all the belly aching can be left alone until the 3 year “trial” is completed and see what happens. None of us can honestly say after one year if it has helped or hurt deer hunting.

My “bar room biology” degree does not seem to be helping me make any quality determinations on the subject

Quote:

---

For every yearlings you can’t shoot this year, there was a yearlings last fall that this next fall will be a legal 2 year old.

---

so instead of slaughtering 1.5 year old bucks every fall we will be slaughtering 2.5 year old bucks every fall?
whats the differance? why is a 2.5 year old buck exceptible to harvest and a 1.5 year old buck is not?
what is the biological reason for this other then antlers?

i’d also like to point out that this APR crap really doesn’t bother me, i do feel sorry for the hunters who were stuck in a lottery permit area.
what bothers me is why the dnr implamented this rule.
ANTLERS BABY ANTLERS
if the deer herd in zone 3 were in dier straghts and we need this to re-build the herd (see 1972) i’d be all for it.

Quote:

---

Hope everyone is aware that special interest groups are already coming to county board meetings pushing SE Minnesota as the next “Out of State” hunting paradise and that the county’s should work with this group to promote out of state hunters. Although I believe there are benefits to antler restrictions, I do believe the average hunter (AND KIDS) will lose the opportunity to hunt due to these special interest groups leasing the land that currently is available. I cannot blame the landowners for bypassing opportunities to benefit financially….but I can blame the special interest groups that want to promote as a “pay to hunt” area. If anyone does not believe these special interest groups intentions, PM me and I can forward County Board Minutes.

---

Jim I know you well enough that I do not need to see the County Board Minutes because I know you are a man of your word. I have to admit that I was not sure where BWA stood on the “pay to hunt” area so I made a phone call. BWA was approached by the special interest group to stand with them on the “pay to hunt” area, BWA said no thank you, and I just wanted everyone to know that BWA IS NOT one of the special interest groups that wants a “pay to hunt” area.