Minnesota Whitetail Alliance

APR Public Input Meetings!

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

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

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

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

Steve,
are these meetings being put on by the Minnesota whitetail alliance or the DNR?
who will be there from the DNR?

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

Quote:

---

Steve,
are these meetings being put on by the Minnesota whitetail alliance or the DNR?
who will be there from the DNR?

---

The meetings are put on by the DNR.

Quote:

---

As I have stated many times on this subject if APR is what the majority of deer hunters are in favor of ( I do not think so ) then I will live with the change. I just do not want to see a select few but vocal minority push thru a personal agenda.

---

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

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

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

“APRs are a trophy buck regulation”

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

“Hunters are giving something up under APRs”

American whitetail enthusiasts are a pretty uniform and solid bunch of people. They love deer and deer hunting. The family hunting traditions and values of the deer hunters in APR states like Pennsylvania and Missouri are pretty much identical to those of Minnesota’s deer hunters. In other words, most of them, just like us, are not trophy hunters.

Missouri for example is nearly identical to Minnesota in habitat acres, deer numbers, hunter densities, annual deer harvest totals and they also have a peak rut firearms season like we do. Support for APRs in Missouri has gone from 40 percent to 85 percent and they added 34 counties to the original 29 after the five-year test run.

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

“APRs will cause high grading”

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

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

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

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

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

Steve

All of your post are missing the simple statement / request that I have made. Which is to let all Deer hunters who are affected by the proposal ( be that Zone 3 hunters or all hunters statewide ) have a say so in the matter. Rather than the extremely small % of deer hunters who have attended one of the few meetings held on the subject or who have completed one of the few online survey on the issue. This statement is direct from the Bluffland whitetail Association, which I assume you are a member of since there is a link direct from the tag on all of your post. “ Management strategies also must take into consideration balancing the interests of hunters, landowners and the public. White-tailed deer, like all fish and wildlife, are a valued public resource. Their management should remain in the hands of the public wildlife managers, whose responsibility it is to serve the best interests of all citizens, versus the private interests of a select few.”
All I have ever stated is that ALL hunters affected should have a say in the decision rather than a select few ( those who attend a meeting or those who completed the few online surveys )

Quote:

---

“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 this is all true what is APR to accomplish?
or is this first step of the special interest goups to get the gun season moved out of the rut?

Ok Steve so you say the deer up to 2.5 yrs old being taken is a problem statewide so why not put the restriction into place for the whole state instead of just a small portion of it? Maybe this is a very select group of hunters wanting the antler restriction in place and they made the most noise and got their way. Just curious.

Quote:

---

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

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

---

I do not see how you can compare bird hunting with deer hunting.
it takes a split second to tell if a turkey has a beard or not.
it takes a split second to tell a rooster from a hen
most waterfowl can be idenified before they’re even in range.
by your many posts on each issue of APR a more accurate comparison would be to compare APR to the ban of asult rifles and over size clips, niether one accomplishes anything.

what time is the meeting tonight?
and are the results of this years survey availible anywhere on the DNR’s web sight?

And I say that if APR’s are made permanent, they should be implimented state-wide. Wording should also be included that makes it illegal to take any antlered deer [using the at least 4″ rule] Until the first day of the regular deer season [first weekend in November]. Earn a buck should come into play here too.

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

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

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

Thanks.

Quote:

---

And I say that if APR’s are made permanent, they should be implimented state-wide. Wording should also be included that makes it illegal to take any antlered deer [using the at least 4″ rule] Until the first day of the regular deer season [first weekend in November]. Earn a buck should come into play here too.

---

Well said Tom. I love it. MN as a whole has had an “If it is brown it is down” mentality for much to long now.

And I am saying this as a guy who hunts as far north from the SE as a person can without an Ontario License.

Quote:

---

what time is the meeting tonight?
and are the results of this years survey availible anywhere on the DNR’s web sight?

---

Sorry I did not get back to this sooner,both nights the meetings starts a 7pm. Not sure when the results will be availible I will see what I can find out.

Quote:

---

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

1. How was it determined what hunters to send the surveys to?

2. What % of those who were surveyed responded?

3. How many total hunters are effected by the current proposal?

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

Thanks.

---

I am going to try and make the meeting tonight and see if I can get an answer to these questions for you.

Here is an article in the Star Trip with some more info.

CLICK HERE FOR LINK

Quote:

---

All of your post are missing the simple statement / request that I have made. Which is to let all Deer hunters who are affected by the proposal ( be that Zone 3 hunters or all hunters statewide ) have a say so in the matter. Rather than the extremely small % of deer hunters who have attended one of the few meetings held on the subject or who have completed one of the few online survey on the issue.

---

I believe your suggestion in past posts has been to poll all MN hunters state wide in a survey question at the time when they buy there deer license if they support APR. Here is why that will not work.

Quote:

---

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

Lou Cornicelli
MN DNR

---

The fact of the matter is the best way to poll ALL MN DEER HUNTERS is to post the survey on the world wide web where ANYONE with a computer can respond to the survey, this is exactly what the MN DNR has done. So if you are right that most MN deer hunters do not support APR then send them the link to the survey and have them send it to all of there anti APR friends, lets here from them, where are they? Why have they not spoken up? Could the answer possibly be that the majority of MN deer hunters really do support APR?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

“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 this is all true what is APR to accomplish?
or is this first step of the special interest goups to get the gun season moved out of the rut?

---

I see this is your first post Welcome to IDO DOBY!

To answer your first question “what is APR to accomplish?” is to give more bucks a chance to live past the age of 2 1/2 years old.

The answer to your second question “is this first step of the special interest goups to get the gun season moved out of the rut?” In the beginning of Bluffland White tails the main goal was to get the gun season moved out of the peak rut time but MN deer hunters spoke loud and clear in the public surveys and said that they did not want the seasons moved so the compromise was APR.

Quote:

---

Ok Steve so you say the deer up to 2.5 yrs old being taken is a problem statewide so why not put the restriction into place for the whole state instead of just a small portion of it?

---

Timmy answered this question in another post……..

Quote:

---

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

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

---

Quote:

---

Maybe this is a very select group of hunters wanting the antler restriction in place and they made the most noise and got their way. Just curious.

---

I already answered this question in my 5th reply in this thread……….

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

Quote:

---

And I say that if APR’s are made permanent, they should be implimented state-wide.

---

See my reply to this question in my previous reply.

Quote:

---

Wording should also be included that makes it illegal to take any antlered deer [using the at least 4″ rule] Until the first day of the regular deer season [first weekend in November].

---

So if I am understanding you correctly you want APR to be in place for opening bow season but when the gun season opens the APR rule should be removed? If this is what you are indeed saying that would defeat the whole puprpose of APR. Before APR was put in place the majority of one and two year old bucks killed was the first week in Nov during the opening of the gun season.

Quote:

---

Earn a buck should come into play here too.

---

Earn a buck did not work in WI what makes you think it would work in MN?

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

Quote:

---

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

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

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

---

Quote:

---

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

---

This is a very sad turn out if so many people are against APR.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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

---

This is a very sad turn out if so many people are against APR.

---

I was thinking the same thing John if so many deer hunters are against APR where are they why have they not spoken up?