Zone 3 APR

[hockeybc69]

Since we are in the midst of the APR study here in MN, here is some info from Missouri, where they have been through all this already.

Here is an excerpt from the Missouri DNR's study regarding APR.

Study Conclusions

Although we did not achieve all of our biological objectives, the APR increased the harvest of adult bucks, increased doe harvest in central APR counties and was generally popular and well supported where implemented. In other words, we consider the APR a helpful management tool.

For 2008 the Antler Point Restriction will be expanded to include 65 counties, mostly in northern and central Missouri. Some counties in southwestern Missouri were excluded because of concerns about deer population declines that have occurred there over the last few years, even though there was public support for the APR. We also excluded urban counties in the St. Louis and Kansas City areas because of the need to harvest as many deer as possible—bucks and does—to reduce conflicts with human activities.

Deer populations in southeastern Missouri are low. We do not need to increase doe harvests there, and a restriction that prohibits hunters from taking a yearling buck would significantly reduce harvest opportunities for some hunters.

We will annually review the results of the APR and may add or remove counties depending on biological issues and public interest. Missouri deer hunters can expect that we will continue to strive to manage deer populations in a way that ensures a healthy deer herd in line with the desires of hunters, landowners and the general public.

Here is a link to the report the above conclusion was pulled from.

http://mdc.mo.gov/conmag/2008/09/experimental-antler-point-restriction?page=0,0

[PEATMOSS]

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.

Sadly, politics plays a huge role in the decisions made by our DNR. DNR employees face pressure from special interest groups, legislators that hold their purse strings, the Governors' office etc. The decisions these people make are not made in an apolitical vacuum.

[james_walleye]

The drop in buck harvest last year shows it had an impact......

[Deep]

The drop in buck harvest last year shows it had an impact......

That was not the primary reason for the APR. It was to increase the antlerless harvest. From what I am hearing, a more balanced healthier heard.Now we have more buck and does in a area that they are trying to reduce numbers, sound like we are going the wrong way.

[PEATMOSS]

The drop in buck harvest last year shows it had an impact......

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that pretty much proves my point. Were there actually any appreciable number of folks committed to this idea prior to it being forced upon them, then there wouldn't have been any drastic drop in buck harvest.

[james_walleye]

Ur right, a bunch of people who were against APRs lied on their surveys LOL. If u wanna fly with the info the dnr gathered as being wrong, go for it. Nothing much I can do about that.

[PEATMOSS]

Ur right, a bunch of people who were against APRs lied on their surveys LOL. If u wanna fly with the info the dnr gathered as being wrong, go for it. Nothing much I can do about that.

Folks can say whatever they want on a survey. Actions speak louder than words. IF there was really as much committed support for APR's as some seem to want us to believe, then criminalizing the shooting of bucks that don't meet other peoples' standards would never have been necessary.

No one is forced to shoot any deer they don't want to. A truly committed majority of hunters could make a huge impact purely with voluntary action. The fact that this has never happened leads me to believe that this "majority" doesn't exist.

[james_walleye]

You can gi ahead and continue going with your "hunches" and keep talking yourself into believing that the mindset in se mn isn't real. I'll go with the facts set in front of me. When you have the pressure and number of hunters that we have down here and 45% of the people that will shoot the first antler they see, that equals a couple thousand bucks a year saved, as evidenced by the drop in buck harvest last year.

[helpme]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I thought the survey was quite leading or one sided! They ask if you would like to see larger bucks (who doesn't), then they ask what regulation you would like to see to accomplish this? Where was the question do you want APR's? Do you like the season the way it is?

And yes the reason for the APR's was to control the doe population with the secondary being antler growth. The problem is, the antler harvest did not go up the 20-35% predicted, which in my mind is a failure. You can offer as many antlerless tags you want, but once the hunter/party reaches the number of deer he needs, he stops hunting.

[Musky Buck]

Let's just go back to slaughterhouse. Fill tags man. Cmon I see deer I shoot the biggest one and find the first to leave deer camp to tag it so I can "save" my tag. Then I blast that small buck so the neighbor don't get it and heck we cut up our own so pile it up so I can "save" my buck tag for later or muzzleloader to hunt for a big one now that my itch to shoot is gone. Count points heck we're blasting the biggest one at first light or last light man, I paid for my ticket to deer hunt so I'm blazing. No wonder my dad hasn't taken a nice buck or any deer in 21 years. Blast away.

[picksbigwagon]

Now Musky Buck, I hunted one time with a guy with that mentality, he was never asked to come back to Houston to hunt with us. a slob is a slob, if you hunt with a slob, you're a slob, talk to him, educate him.

If the APR's were put in to help reduce the deer numbers, why did we have 8 or more years of management and intensive harvest zone is zone 3? If the hunters didn't shoot doe's then, why would they start now? I can speak of zones 346 and 349 where there is a lot of deer. I remember when I started maybe 12 years ago when it was an apply for a doe tag, otherwise shoot bucks and suddenly the numbers got out of whack. How is not shooting bucks going to help with that 40% of hunters who won't shoot a deer. (MN Conservationist article last month or the month before)

[james_walleye]

Hoe can you call it a failure when the real effects of this all was to be seen was in the next 2 seasons??? Which we may not get to see because s representative is overriding the whole process?!

[helpme]

Hoe can you call it a failure when the real effects of this all was to be seen was in the next 2 seasons??? Which we may not get to see because s representative is overriding the whole process?!

I would like to know what you mean by "real effects". The primary reason for the APR's was to control the deer population by shifting the hunting pressure to the doe's. Secondary effect of the APR's just happens to be an older class of buck's! Since the regulation did not reduce the doe population, this in itself can be considered a failure in deer management strategy. The doe harvest has not changed more than 108 deer within the last 3 years in zone 3-updated numbers by the DNR within the last week if you are wondering. And in my opinion, these regulations are a social decision and not a biological decision.

[jkcmj]

We have so few does around our land, that we havn't shot any the last two years and still no recovery of population. I would like to harvest a young buck to keep meet in the freezer, but cannot due to some clown in the DNR deciding we need to count points. I was more than willing this season to throw my buck tag away on a young buck. I had my cameras out for over 2 months last season, same 4 does, and 16 different bucks on camera.

Thank God we have Draz in to right the ship this time around...hopefully we always have someone solid in to support hunters and gun owners rights.

[bottom-bouncer]

why is it that half the people on this forum that are so against the apr dont even live in this part of the state? also I can tell by the people who have the brown its down mentality and claim that the apr is a failure because the number of does killed was down let me remind you last year the weather was not really condusive to time spent in the field surely you are aware of this because you are the same people that want the easy deer. [Note from admin: Your post has been edited. Please read forum policy before posting again. Thank you.]

also note that bluffland whitetails was NOT in favor of the apr it WAS in favor of moving the seasons. attend a meeting or two get your facts straight and then form an opionion. When you just ramble aimlessly you dont help your cause any you just show your mentality. And if you have very few does on your property I would like to buy that piece of land from you because its the such parcell in S.E minn and then maybe I wouldnt have to listen to the wife complain that the deer are eating all of her flowers and the schrubs. If you dont want to sell then maybe you could do some habitat improvement to your land to make it more desirable for deer to live .

[someday]

If your looking for a place with no does?There are several properties South of me with for sale signs. I don't there are any deer there anymore. Up until a month ago you couldn't drive by there and not have to slow up or at least see a group of deer on the hillside. Its a nice wooded area about half a mile Northeast of the former elk farm

[nonteepical]

4 does and 16 bucks.

And all boone and crockett?

[PostFrontal]

Area 51, JFK Assassination, MN DNR APR, yep all good conspiracies...Sounds like Jesse has material for another show...

[hockeybc69]

Well I dont feel like reading 5 pages of this topic, so sorry if this has been posted.

How many of you are aware of the omnibus bill going through our states office right now?

I didnt post the entire thing below, but I did add the section regarding APR in zone 3.

Omnibus game and fish bill gets committee approval

published 4/5/2011

The omnibus game and fish bill contains more than 60 proposed new or amended provisions to the state’s fishing and hunting laws, some of which are hot button issues.

New hunting provisions would include prohibiting the DNR from adopting antler point restrictions on deer harvested in the southeastern part of the state, known as the Series 300 area. Several people spoke against the provision, saying it circumvents years of stakeholder input. Others said it makes poachers out of hunters who accidentally shoot deer and encourages hunters to leave them in the woods to avoid violations.

[Getanet]

Here's the stupid thing, and I realize it happens all the time when it comes to politics, but there are 60 proposed new or amended provisions in the bill.

The more controversial ones - at least from the disagreements I've read here on HSO - include fishing with 2 lines, repeal of APR, and spearing on Cass Lake.

How can anyone vote on a bill like that? If, for example, you feel strongly that 2-lines should be allowed but not APR, how do you vote? These are some pretty important issues to be lumped together into one Yes or No vote.

[DHost21]

Here's the stupid thing, and I realize it happens all the time when it comes to politics, but there are 60 proposed new or amended provisions in the bill.

The more controversial ones - at least from the disagreements I've read here on HSO - include fishing with 2 lines, repeal of APR, and spearing on Cass Lake.

How can anyone vote on a bill like that? If, for example, you feel strongly that 2-lines should be allowed but not APR, how do you vote? These are some pretty important issues to be lumped together into one Yes or No vote.

I agree how can there be all these different laws on one bill! What if you agree with some and disagree with others? How do you vote? I think its a big joke. And when it comes to the APR's atleast let the thing go through its 3 year cycle and then decide whether or not its good. Hunters are suppose to be patient people but they dont have enough patients to see this through? Give me a break

[james_walleye]

Did the dnr ever say you would see any results in the first year?? Most states that did this got 5 years to see the full results. We got sorted by originally only given 3. Now it may be over before it started. So ya again I ask, how can you already call APRs a faulure??? This includes every measure of what APRs hoped to accomplish.

[helpme]

Did the dnr ever say you would see any results in the first year?? Most states that did this got 5 years to see the full results. We got sorted by originally only given 3. Now it may be over before it started. So ya again I ask, how can you already call APRs a faulure??? This includes every measure of what APRs hoped to accomplish.

This will take you to the information posted below. Page 7 will show you the expectations.

MN DNR DATA

In year 1, some of the declines in buck harvest would be offset by increases in antlerless harvest. Our estimated (based on our data and Missouri) is that antlerless harvest would increase approximately 15% from the antlerless harvest that would have occurred without APRs.

[james_walleye]

Like I said this was suppose to be a 3 year trial period with multiple facets to it. What if years 2 and 3 went to plan? You can't call it a failure because year 1 of 3 didn't go as planned. We were suppose to see 3 years trial and go from there. If it didn't work at all, it goes away. But we aren't going to get to see th whole 3 year process. Do you by chance hunt in zone 3 help?

[DHost21]

I agree 100 percent with you james walleye! Its so ridiculous how people cant give it a chance! Im for it so a little biased but still if it had negative effects after the full 3 years i would rethink my stance but right now give it a chance it has worked in other areas so let it play out. I hunt all public land and personally i see way too many people taking small bucks especially in the metro and you can take as many does as you want there so take a doe and pass up on the bucks they are trying to cut numbers down in that area it frustrates me so bad. Take does if you want meat people and let the young bucks walk! It would help the population and let the deer grow to maturity! Win win in my eyes