Zone 3 APR

[PurpleFloyd]

from the DNR roundtable. the DNR estimates 2400 1.5 year olds were spared through APR's after the end of 2010 deer season harvest statistics for zone 3. thats alot of bucks that are going to be running around next year.

Or running into cars next year. I guess it is better to see them on a car grill than a charcoal grill.

[Bear55]

What I can't find anywhere is what their actual population goals are for each area in the state vs what they think the current populations are. This goes hand-in-hand with not ever hearing if their goal is to have all zones lottery or managed. Do you guys know where any of this infrmation is?

I think this would be valuable information in the APR discussion.

I don't think you will find this information but I agree why not be open and honest with us on population goals?

[nonteepical]

a bill being heard this morning at the capitol on changing it back to kill everything that moves.

[jkcmj]

I was glad the amendment made it through committee this morning intact. Hopefully it will all pass and we can be back to business as usual this season. Of course for me that means letting little bucks go, but to some it means younger, better flavored deer in the freezer, and I am fine with that to... to each his own.

[Getanet]

If I understand correctly, they are already voting to eliminate the APR in Zone 3?

I've been against APR on these forums, for many reasons. I still am. With that said, these special regs where put in place for 3 years and it seems like they should see it through so we can get some better evidence of APRs impact on hunter satisfaction in MN.

[jkcmj]

Yes, you understand correctly. The legislative repeal of antler restrictions is over ruling the DNR, as many people felt the DNR have been bowing to pressure from the big money end of the hunting spectrum, and ignoring the majority of hunters who put less emphasis on the antlers, and more on time with the family and meat in the freezer. Those wishing to continue passing on small bucks, such as myself, are still welcome to do so, now they can no longer force their own agenda on the rest of the state's residents:)

[PEATMOSS]

After years of making several legislative end around attempts themselves, I'm guessing that it will be a matter of hours before Michael Sieve, the Bluffland boys or some other horn porn pusher starts squealing like a little girl about legislative meddling and lack of respect for our DNR

[nonteepical]

If i remember right it is the i should be able to kill anything i want crowd who are squeeling like little girls to change it back, and can't wait 3 years for the study to play out. Little girls have no foresight. it's not changed yet it just got out of commitee its has to be heard on the floor. MDHA found a loophole with CWD as an excuse to change it back to shoot every buck that walks by your stand, then call your neighbor to see if they know of anyone with an extra buck tag.

[PEATMOSS]

My comment was directed at the process only. I think we've beaten the APR/QDM horse into the ground.

Of course it has been awhile.....

[picksbigwagon]

The study should be played out for the three years since it was legislated so....let's remember to play nice here

[james_walleye]

There isn't a person on this forum that shouldn't be steaming that a lone representative can introduce a bill that can over ride the governing body being paid to handle these issues. Not only that but over rode what the majority of zone 3 hunters wanted. I hope he is ready for the kind of backlash he's going to get. Maybe he has forgotten what happened when Chaudary pulled this stunt.

[someday]

If any of you think you need more deer? Bring a cattle trailer to the CWD kill zone and I'm sure we can get the neighbors to help get you a load full. The genes are good for big horns so you can grow some big ones.

[PEATMOSS]

There isn't a person on this forum that shouldn't be steaming that a lone representative can introduce a bill that can over ride the governing body being paid to handle these issues. Not only that but over rode what the majority of zone 3 hunters wanted. I hope he is ready for the kind of backlash he's going to get. Maybe he has forgotten what happened when Chaudary pulled this stunt.

In a perfect world, I'd be inclined to agree with you. Of course, in a perfect world, state agencies, like the DNR would always do what is right and wouldn't be swayed or bullied by special interest groups. Don't think for a minute that EITHER side is above biting, scratching or pulling hair to get their way

[MJ1657]

Yes, you understand correctly. The legislative repeal of antler restrictions is over ruling the DNR, as many people felt the DNR have been bowing to pressure from the big money end of the hunting spectrum, and ignoring the majority of hunters who put less emphasis on the antlers, and more on time with the family and meat in the freezer. Those wishing to continue passing on small bucks, such as myself, are still welcome to do so, now they can no longer force their own agenda on the rest of the state's residents:)

Outstanding post.

[PEATMOSS]

so....let's remember to play nice here

I try, I really do. This particular issue just really gets me

[picksbigwagon]

and I understand it peatmoss, I really do. I don't think a private land philosophy (QDM) should be enforced on a public sector. The DNR decided to try it for 3 years on a part of tha state that contains areas that produce big deer. Does all of zone 3 have monster bucks, no, does all of Iowa have huge bucks? NO......

this is a hot button issue, as it was this fall when we went round and round on this topic. I have tried to see both sides of it and I admit my opinion has changed some. two more years and the DNR should be allowed to evaluate it. If it has some positives, I would love to see out of state licenses racked up to the costs that I incure when I head to Iowa and hunt with friends and family. (Doe only)

[lakevet]

One very important point often lost in this topic is that the PRIMARY reason the DNR presented as justification of APR's is that it would help increase the antlerless harvest in areas where APR is implemented. That is the MAJOR reason the DNR implemented it. Increasing the mature buck population is the SECONDARY reason, while it is the primary reason hunters will state they support it. One other option considered was earn a buck to force buck hunters to help manage the antlerless population. Since that high an antlerless harvest was not yet needed, they went with apr's, which is supposed to increase antlerless take modestly.

DNR 2010 regs book section explaining reason for APR's

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."

and p.77

"there should be a slight increase

in the number of antlerless deer taken because some hunters will choose to

harvest a doe (or fawn) instead."

I hope the DNR (if allowed to follow its plan of review after 3 years) has the integrity to repeal the reg if it does not meet its primary stated purpose.....getting hunters to do their part in reducing the deer population down to goal populations. If this reg doesn't achieve its primary purpose, it should be repealed. Those that want to maintain the reg should shoot does. With 40% of us refusing to shoot antlerless, the DNR may have to impose more regs to "encourage " the buck onlys" to shoot hornless deer. When APR's were introduced in Pennsylvania it was primarily to reduce a totally out of control deer population, not grow big bucks. That was a carrot to sell the idea.

Again the main justification for APR regs is population control, and horns are secondary!

From reading the posts here, it sounds like a repeal has been introduced in the legislature. With the fact that most hunters think the reg is only about horns, it shows how much misinformation and misunderstanding is out there. Once in place, the population control justification could be easily forgotten and thus APR's stay in place. Mature buck agenda met but with a way isn't as clean as it could be.

I believe that when people make the effort to research and use facts first then form their opinions, consensus is built and conflict is lessened. While I personally am against apr's and against ban on buck cross tagging (mainly because the undisputed fact that Wisc & Iowa produce the desired big buck hunting without these regs), I am for the DNR being allowed to follow it's plan to run regs 3 years then review BOTH of them.

Maybe this will be enough of a train wreck, that everyone will be more open to the solution of RESTORING the main gun harvest to match what Wisc and Iowa do, and what Minnesota used to do. The season was moved over the rut in 1972 to help increase buck success when the DNR went from any deer legal to the buck only/antlerless permit system. The DNR was worried that hunter success would be too low to retain hunters if they had to hunt bucks after the main rut. The system worked to increase the deer population, but also trained several generations of deer hunters to expect the easy parade of bucks (esp young bucks) that happens during the rut.

Anyone have a link about the status of the repeal mentioned in some of the above posts?

Thanks!

lakevet

[james_walleye]

Peat, blufflands might have brought the issue to the forefront. But they were NOT responsible for getting APRs place. What seems to get lost Everytime this issue comes up is that the reason the dnr finally did go forward with APRs is that the majority if zone 3 hunters were for some sort of protection for young bucks. You can continue to not believe that, but it's not a secret, all the numbers are public knowledge. So let's quit pretending that that some small vocal minority got this done, because those aren't the facts.

The real issue at hand is this is s horrible precedent to be setting. What is the next? Will some senator change walleye limits to 10? Or how about 1?. How about getting rid if closed seasons for fishing? Change it to where we can all shoot 3 bucks per year? This has to stop. Chaudary pulled this stunt last year and heard about it. Now Draskowski needs to hear it. How bout these clowns find a way to balance our budget instead of overriding an agency that is already in place to make these decisions.

[BLACKJACK]

How bout these clowns find a way to balance our budget instead of overriding an agency that is already in place to make these decisions.

Agreed!!!! Let the DNR, with their team of biologists, make the decisons!!!! Not some legislative joker who's cousin didn't like APR's!!

I have to admit, I'm not a fan of APR's, but now that the study is in place, lets give it two more years to see how it works.

[hockeybc69]

Right on Blackjack!

[B. Amish]

since when was this ever a 'study'?

[Deep]

One very important point often lost in this topic is that the PRIMARY reason the DNR presented as justification of APR's is that it would help increase the antlerless harvest in areas where APR is implemented..

Can you show me where the antlerlees harvest went up after this last fall deer hunting season in the APR zone? I read in a paper the Lou was suprised to see the antlerless harvest went down.

I would like to see the reports that the QDMA and the round table have been shown.

[Deep]

Let deer hunting be deer hunting. Their is plenty of big bucks out there( look in the ODN).

If they were so concerned about anterless harvest it either should have been no cross tagging a buck or (GASP) earn a buck.

Lou said in the ODN that some places may always intensive harvest. What is that saying?

[PEATMOSS]

Peat, blufflands might have brought the issue to the forefront. But they were NOT responsible for getting APRs place. What seems to get lost Everytime this issue comes up is that the reason the dnr finally did go forward with APRs is that the majority if zone 3 hunters were for some sort of protection for young bucks. You can continue to not believe that, but it's not a secret, all the numbers are public knowledge. So let's quit pretending that that some small vocal minority got this done, because those aren't the facts.

One can quote surveys or turnout at roundtables or anything else you want, but IF there was truly any kind of majority that had any real level of commitment, would we need a law? Quote any stats you like, but the truth lies in peoples actions.

[creepworm]

Blackjack is right on. Could not be more correct.