Requested information from Zone 3

[someday]

AS requested on another thread. The wording of a petition asking for a Legislative hearing on the changes made to the 2010 Zone 3 deer has been agreed upon by various parties in the Southern half of Zone 3. So as not to break any rules of this forum I can send the information on the petition to anyone requesting it if you contact me on my cell at 5076963246

[Jameson]

Can we sign it at some public place? Bait store somewhere? If so you can name places.

[someday]

to my knowledge there is no organized effort to distribute this. Just individuals or often hunting party groups who would like this rule gone or at least changes made to make it more fair. If you want a copy to read and put out for singing I can mail you a hard copy if you let me know where you want it sent or it is a 85.6kb pdf. file I can send you as an attachment to an e-mail. I am not real good with computers but I can get my son to help me

[nonteepical]

hunting party groups who would like this rule gone or at least changes made to make it more fair .

it's already fair....for the 1.5 year old buck, the most vulnerable deer in the woods to have a chance to live another year.

or do you really mean easier for the brown it's down hunter?

[someday]

No their talking about being fair to the older hunter who after deer hunting for 50,60, 70 years with out considering breaking a law, feels forced to give up what he loves and lives for because his age no longer allows him to discern the difference between a doe and a young buck with a 3in spike. What gives you more right than him to hunt. If you only knew the truth that this is not about more and better deer for you. This is an economic development plan being promoted to the DNR and our elected Government officials to plunder our Natural Resources by big money people for more money. The only thing fair about this is that anyone who's not in it just for the money is with the losers.

[Deep]

I would love to see it.Could you please email it to me? Thank you; Doug. I will pm you with my email address.

I tried to pm you but yours was full.

[someday]

I think I found the feature you are talking about and emptied it. if you try it again it might work. if your information comes back to me? I'll try and attach the pdf file to it and send it back.

[nonteepical]

i wouldn't be opposed to the seniors being able to take any buck, but i don't know any seniors that hunt with us that are that selfish, they have hunted for decades, most likely taken several deer over that period and are out there to enjoy nature. they enjoy having their children and grandchildren harvesting deer. i think it's more of us children and grandchildren who want to see our dads and grandpa's take a deer for our own enjoyment, because we know they are at the end of their hunting years. Even before APR's i don't think they cared if they shot a deer or not(at least in my hunting party) they understand hunting isn't about the kill.

[Deep]

Selfish? Selfish is the people that restrict others because they want for their own personal satisfaction.

Enough talking about it, it's time to act on it.

[nonteepical]

thats right. now lay on the floor and kick your feet and say this to yourself in a spoiled little childs voice "i should be able to shoot anything i want!"

[hockeybc69]

HAAAAAAAAA

[jtoast]

Wow, so your (someday) saying that people are asking for a legislative hearing into the changes because of some sort of an economic development conspiracy being pushed on our DNR to ruin our resources for profit? OK first of all I'm assuming that this conspiracy is based through the Hunting Works for MN group. To my knowledge, they were formed after the zone 3 changes took effect and if you look at their web site, you don't have to search too far to see it's underlying political tones. That said, I want to be there when this petition is presented to our elected officials just to see their faces, because as we all know economics(money) has nothing to do with politics. Good Luck! I know I'm way out there, but maybe the changes were made to deal with problems associated with 30 years of letting hunters decide on what's "fair". Hey, I'll sign a petition to get rid of restrictions, but not until population is controlled, we once again have a "mature" herd and whiney hunters shut their mouths (petitions) and let the professionals manage our habitat.

[Getanet]

Without seeing the petition it's hard to comment on the specifics of it. But I will say it's good there now appears to be a more organized effort among those that oppose the APR rule.

As has been mentioned on previous threads, those pushing for APR in that area were much more organized in their efforts. Now the folks that oppose it appear to be trying to form a collective voice too, and it seems certain folks here don't like it...

[Deep]

Very well said Getanet.

From what I understand the the meetings from some of the groups that wanted the APR had meetings with the MN DNR and the public was not informed about these meeetings, if you are dealing with the DNR, WE all should know about when and where.

I would be fine with the APR law, only if when you bought your license each and everyone that hunted zone 3 was questioned and was give the rules that they would have to abide by IF it was a majority that wanted it, And Mr. Sieve(sp?) now that is another battle.

[jtoast]

I'm glad you picked up on my frustration, I don't hide things well. The petition doesn't bother me at all, it's the basis on which it was intitiated that does. I respect and understand the opposition to APR's (or any other management tool) but for so many people to base that opposition on rumor and misinformation is disrespectful to those who put in the time and effort to learn about what's happening within the hunting community. I like to think I follow the happenings regarding deer management pretty close and that includes both attending as many meetings as I can and keeping up on what these mysterious groups are up to. Getanet and Deep both refer to organized groups that pushed for APR's. Please somebody prove me wrong on this, APR's were the reccomendation of the DNR to add a buck component to their population management plan. There was never an organized group that promoted APR's in zone 3. The interest in improving the age structure of the herd has been around for quite a while and incidentally the vast majority (almost 70%) of hunters have acknowledged that through survey over the years. How to improve that age structure has been the controversy. That's why the DNR surveyed us hunters in 2009. It surprised me as much as others, but hunters wanted APR's before any other alternative management plan. MDHA, BWA and QDMA all offered their opinions which included lengthening seasons, limiting cross tagging and moving seasons back, but none initially promoted APR's. Since the DNR proposal, at least 2 of those groups have vocally supported the DNR's management stratagy, which is what I feel was the right thing to do, and the reason I can't help but to respond to these discussions. I'm having a hard time even figuring out who this particular fight/petition is really against, is it the DNR for responding to the hunters wishes, is it against a certain individual or group or is it just a way to vent your frustration for a reasonable response to an arguably unreasonable yet uncontrollable shift in our hunting culture?

[someday]

I opened this thread in answer to a request on another thread for information on the petition. Since I'm new to this forum and was not sure of all it's workings and rules I left my cell number for anyone who wanted a copy to give me a place to send it. Deep's first post alerted me to the messaging part of MY stuff,so I emptied Rick's greeting and believe you could ask for the pdf that way now. If someone who is sure of the rules and wants to post it on here they are welcome to do so. As far as I know getting this to people has been limited to a few of us who had some say in writing it showing it to our friends for comment and signing if they chose to.

[Bear55]

No their talking about being fair to the older hunter who after deer hunting for 50,60, 70 years with out considering breaking a law, feels forced to give up what he loves and lives for because his age no longer allows him to discern the difference between a doe and a young buck with a 3in spike.

I am not going to argue either side of this thing but older hunters in lotto areas don't seem to have a problem with this. Not to mention before we had all these extra doe tags available people had to identify what they were shooting for many years, no one complained then. Even if you have an either sex tag it's not a bad idea to at least have an idea if you are shooting a doe, buck, or fawn.

[Deep]

Someday is right. This thread was started to let people know that they can have a say also. It was not meant to be another bickering post about what you think is correct. I am sorry about getting involved in that Someday.

[Getanet]

Getanet and Deep both refer to organized groups that pushed for APR's. Please somebody prove me wrong on this, APR's were the reccomendation of the DNR to add a buck component to their population management plan. There was never an organized group that promoted APR's in zone 3.

Hi JToast. Here's a quote from an Associated Press article at the time these measures were announced:

"Bluffland Whitetails Association organized the gathering of top Department of Natural Resources wildlife managers, deer-hunter groups and experts from three other states. BWA and several other groups say they are seeing too few big bucks and want a better chance to shoot one someday."

As I've noted in multiple other threads, I don't hunt this region. But there are many people on this forum (and not on this forum) that would like to see APR instituted state wide. Those of us who believe the current regulations are adequate aren't organized, because quite frankly we didn't know we needed to be.

[jtoast]

I think that article was from the 2009 SE Minnesota deer hunting roundtable which BWA hosted. All the stakeholder groups were there and presented their "wish list" as far as how they wanted deer to be managed. I was lucky enough to attend and that may have been the first place I heard of the idea of APR's probably coming to zone 3. And as I stated before, the DNR is who proposed implementation of APR's, not the particular groups. Granted their proposal was based on what hunters and hunting groups wanted, but that's the way it's suppose to work. Those groups are our voices whether we like it or not. Besides (random) survey results confirmed what hunters and groups were basically asking for. I think that presentation may still be on the BWA HSOforum?

My response wasn't meant to rekindle old debates, but in posting (and promoting) a petition seems to me as being fair game for debate. And it's all of our responsibility to call out misinformation and try to set the record strait.

[WalleyeChamp]

thats right. now lay on the floor and kick your feet and say this to yourself in a spoiled little childs voice "i should be able to shoot anything i want!"

nonteepical- It's responses like that that will get you and your thoughts nowhere.

[Getanet]

Thanks for the response JToast, I had sort of forgotten about this thread with the holidays being so busy.

As I've said, none of us have seen this petition so it's impossible to comment on the merits of it. Even though I think we probably have different viewpoints on APR, I hope we can agree that this new regulation is a very important issue which may have implications far beyond Zone 3. It really is an issue hunters across that state should be paying attention to. I think transparency is the key, and now that it has been implemented we should be hearing about the good, the bad and the ugly over the 3 years the new regulations are in effect.

To this point anyone against APR in that region have simply been lone voices. I think it's important that those not in favor of APR in Zone 3 have a collective voice going forward.

[nonteepical]

nonteepical- It's responses like that that will get you and your thoughts nowhere.

[lakevet]

from the 2010 DNR handbook:

p.76

"For the past 5 years, DNR biologists have been evaluating non-traditional regulations that are designed to primarily lower deer densities but also, perhaps increase the proportion of mature bucks in the population."

Important side note: Notice the words "designed to PRIMARILY lower deer populations"?

I want to say to ALL of you guys as we ALL as a group have done a great job in conjunction with the DNR in preventing a deer population explosion that some other states have struggling with. It is nice not have to constantly dodge deer when driving at night and after having had a relative get into a motorcycle deer accident, I can accept not seeing tons of deer all the time. Doesn't mean everyone is happy with the population levels. Remember this is just a reminder of the "big picture" and a side note as pertaining to this post.

p. 77

" The results of the survey can be found on the DNR HSOforum but we essentially learned there were no differences in attitudes between 3A and 3B hunters and that about half supported the APR regulation, while another 15% said they didn't care and would hunt even if the APR was adopted. "

"Special Regulations in 300-Series Deer Areas Only (338-349)"

"This regulation will be implemented for a period of 3 years and then reassessed through surveys and public meetings. If there is continued support, the regulation will be continued for 3 additional years."

Since the surveys done by the DNR did not show overwhelming support for change ( it was only "about half") and often had a significant portion of hunters (such as 15%) who were not for or against the regulation but would hunt anyway, it is a good thing that people of different viewpoints that were less organized are organizing. Hunters overall will become more educated on what impact the regulations will have both positive and negative. Also those who were not of an opinion ( "didn't care") but now have formed an opinion will have a chance to speak up. Also thanks to the DNR for setting up a review process not just in 3 years but again 3 years later. These are special regulations subject to being dropped at 2 different points, 3 years from now and then 3 years after that. My understanding is that both APR's and cross tagging are subject to review. Study up on the facts of the impact of these special regulations. Once you have the facts then form an opinion.

If you are a member of BWA, MDHA, or starting a new organization, participate in the process. Use facts as much as possible to support your point.

Hopefully things will remain civil. I myself have had to erase much in doing this post as I think it is important to focus on the process and the facts of how that process works and save the debate over what should change and why for a different thread.

lakevet

[96trigger]

Lakevet,

Usually we disagree, but your last post was spot on. It will be reviewed in 3 years. If you guys are organizing, you have two years to do it. I don't see any chance in getting it changed with a petition, but your voices will at least get a chance to be heard. In two years, when this is back up for review, hopefuly you will be organized and feel like you have had a voice regardless of the outcome. I am still in favor of APR and no buck cross tagging, I would like to let this play out and see if attitudes change in 3 years.