Petition to Keep the Antler Point Restrictions in MN

[BigNasty]

Minnesota has recently made some progress towards improving its management of whitetail deer. It has joined the many other states who have implemented some sort of buck harvest restriction. Zone 3 has been a test area to see how Antler Point Restrictions (APR) will work. We have completed one year of the planned three years. Other states have found that approval rating increased over that time frame. There has been language added to H. F. No. 984, and will potentially be added to S.F. 943, that will dismantle all the work done by many individuals. The DNR has performed surveys and they have indicated that the hunters in zone 3 are clearly in support of the APRs. This language would only reflect the beliefs of the minority and lead to a potentially dangerous situation where we are allowing the wildlife populations of Minnesota to be managed by the citizens of the state and not the trained and more qualified biologists.

By signing this electronic petition, we state that we support APR regulations in Minnesota and DO NOT want to see them taken out after only one year. We should allow this 3 year trial to continue its course. See the petition letter for specific language.

http://www.change.org/petitions/support-...f-943-and-hf984

Once you sign it looks like it automatically sends a e-mail to several state reps, so there is nothing more to do.

If you believe in APR please take a moment to sign this petition.

Thanks,

BN

[pulleye16]

" This language would only reflect the beliefs of the minority and lead to a potentially dangerous situation where we are allowing the wildlife populations of Minnesota to be managed by the citizens of the state and not the trained and more qualified biologists."

Show me where APR benefits the wildlife (deer) and I will sign this first thing in the morning. Oh-wait, it only benefits the hunters...No way in does APR benefit the whitetail herd.

[Note from admin: Your post has been edited. Please read forum policy before posting again. Thank you.]

People would be more responsive if you came right out and said if you want APR cause you want bigger deer then state that.

[schmoe147]

I would love to see the whole state go into a APR. It would benefit the deer herd which would also benefit the hunter. People that are against this would forget about it after a couple years when the start to see the results. The deer herd would be alot healthier. I'm not a antler guy myself (ITS A BONUS IF YOU GET A BIG ONE) and see no reason not to do this.I think pulleye16 fell off the rocker!!!

[PurpleFloyd]

I think I will pass on this one.

[Jameson]

Minnesota has recently made some progress towards improving its management of whitetail deer.

[MJ1657]

I took a look at the petition. By the looks of the first page this is very important to people on California, New Mexico and Connecticut.

Looks a little suspect to me.

I cannot speak for this petition but I signed one from one of these rent a petition sites and I got piles of emails from them.

[BobT]

Quote:

I would love to see the whole state go into a APR. It would benefit the deer herd which would also benefit the hunter.

In what way can it benefit the deer herd more than it already is? I'm more than happy with our current situation. The success rate of our hunting party has been well over 60% for nearly 20 years running and we've taken a good variety of bucks (spikes to 12pt up to 220#) and does. How could I possibly expect anything better? Leave things well enough alone I say.

[Matt Breuer]

To Jameson. Talk about nitpicking... you'll surely need a new lice comb after a few more posts like that one....

Thanks for posting the info for those interested, BN.

[Musky Buck]

I hunt 4 areas. 3 of 4 stink at a chance at a 2.5 year old + buck so I'm in. My dad might even take hunting deer seriously again. It's a complete joke in his eyes and since we opened the door wide for ample opportunity at them and we didn't buy our land hoping for buck lottery 1 day, so our entire group of 24 of us are in. 7 of us have farms and we see what the local bachelor herds look like today compared to 10-20 years ago, there's always 1 nice 1 around for 30 of us to hunt. But is APR the answer the jury is still out, I still wish zone 4 existed, it was the right answer, 2 days or 4, split pressure, no muzzleloading, bucks made it through the season plenty of them, people had no reason to "save" their tag. Those are a few factors that trashed the decent buck population in my area, major negative when zone 2 came and all can muzzleload, was a big time downer, thankfully I have areas 3 and 4 to hunt where everyone practices go grow, if it wasn't so wet hippers needed dad could hunt there to but he's stuck in blast everything city.

[Musky Buck]

In a nutshell I'd rather see APR then buck lottery especially for the older hunters sake who may call 2011 there last and also for the kids who likely consider any buck a trophy, like most of us did. Do you remember your first buck ? Mine happened to be a 7 pointer, would've qualified for APR I guess, but I had no idea, I just knew to bear down and make the shot, my eyes were bigger than 2 sheep terds in a snowbank, had a 2 day season, had a metal tag, I learned a ton from that buck, dragging, dressing it out, the tagging process, registration process, why he was following 5 minutes behind a doe and 2 fawns, and much more. Whatever regs are in place next November, it is what it is.

[MichaelSwan]

I would rather have less regs but if everyone shoots everything that moves, it is much harder to get a bigger buck. I hunt public land because I don't have access to private. I got my first buck, a 9 pt, in 2009, I am 40. I have passed on anything less than 10 pts, hoping that they will be there the following year, though I don't hold my breath.

If everyone let the 6 or 8 pt walk, everyone would get the 10 or 12 pt. Of course, I have shot lots of does.

[BRULEDRIFTER]

If everyone let the 6 or 8 pt walk, everyone would get the 10 or 12 pt.

Then in 10 years all those 10-12 pointers will become the norm and folks will get bored, then there will be a push for APR's to make a criminals out of someone who doesn't pass on anything with less than 6pts on a side..... all in the name of herd health.......

[nonteepical]

This is the actual petition MDHA and brown it's down are passing around and endorsing...I think they share deer camp with PETA. calling themselves deer hunters is an embarrassment and more over they are ignorant about what the temporary regulations are trying to accomplish.

Petition to remove the 4 points on one antler and

no cross tagging rules in Zone 3 in Minnesota

The Zone 3 4-points on one antler rule is discriminatory to hunters and leads to inhumane treatment of deer. Also by eliminating the cross tagging of deer between those legal to kill them; long practiced hunting methods such as the family deer drive is threatened to become but a distant memory of the generations who have come together annually to learn from each other and share family traditions. For these reasons we the undersigned hunters of Minnesota ask that these rules be removed in the name of fair chase and fair access for all. Where as: This Rule promotes hunting deer for their antlers exclusively; we feel this is demeaning to the animals and the sport! By doing this The DNR has made this sport no better than killing an elephant for its tusks, a rhino for its horn, or a bear for its gall! These are considered illegal and despicable acts the world over!

Where as: A less than legal buck that is hit accidently or through misidentification cannot be euthanized or possessed. This animal is likely to be abandoned to suffer a painful death and needless waste. Where as: We believe there already exists, in many areas of Zone 3, adequate numbers of trophy class bucks for those willing to put in the effort worthy of someone harvesting such an animal! When the Minnesota DNR attempts to artificially increase the number of trophy bucks, as by this rule, they only cheapen the experience of the hunt. The only true beneficiaries of having more than normal levels of trophy class bucks in the Zone are those who seek to market them for monetary gain. Where as: For proper identification to take place under this rule the animal needs to feel unthreatened and unaware it is being hunted. The only legal hunting method that would accomplish this is to ambush the deer most likely from an elevated stand. Hunting from elevated stands result in over half of all hunting accidents. This method of hunting would be unsafe for many older hunters. Where as: This rule discriminates against persons with less than perfect eye sight. For they are expected to determine an animal’s legal status ( a legally defined point being a point one inch long or longer) by counting the legal antler points on one of both sides of the rack even when the animal is in low light, moving or in cover . At the very least persons with medical conditions that limit vision and persons over a certain age should be afforded the same exemption as the 17 and under age group who are likely to have better vision. For these and other reasons we ask that you eliminate the antler point rule as well as the cross tagging rule implemented for the 2010 Zone 3 deer season.

[PostFrontal]

Check out the "Deer-Bear-Elk-Moose" Forum. On the 1st page is "Zone 3 APR." We just got done beating this topic to death.

[Tinkhamtown]

Count me against antler point regulations. I hunt for the meat and restrict myself to bucks only to minimize the affect my hunting has on the size of deer herd. Trophy antler hunters can restrict themselves we do not need the government passing laws in this area.

[gador2]

Count me against antler point regulations. I hunt for the meat and restrict myself to bucks only to minimize the affect my hunting has on the size of deer herd. Trophy antler hunters can restrict themselves we do not need the government passing laws in this area.

You should shoot some does for a better buck to doe ratio

[BobT]

For what it's worth, I do not support state-wide APR. I feel it’s main purpose is to promote a standard to appease a select group of hunters who want to simplify their ability to achieve their idea of success. Trophy deer are out there and I am not convinced that the number of bucks reaching trophy status is necessarily a direct reflection of the health of the deer herd.

I could support designating certain numbers of hunting areas for APR throughout the state. Be that as it may, I read through this petition and I will not sign because I feel it is poorly written and presents weak argument.

Quote:

Where as: This Rule promotes hunting deer for their antlers exclusively; we feel this is demeaning to the animals and the sport! By doing this The DNR has made this sport no better than killing an elephant for its tusks, a rhino for its horn, or a bear for its gall! These are considered illegal and despicable acts the world over!

This argument is week because the APR rule doesn’t promote taking the antlers alone.

Quote:

Where as: A less than legal buck that is hit accidently or through misidentification cannot be euthanized or possessed. This animal is likely to be abandoned to suffer a painful death and needless waste.

This one is really weak. Buck only seasons have been utilized for decades without a problem and this is no different.

Quote:

Where as: We believe there already exists, in many areas of Zone 3, adequate numbers of trophy class bucks for those willing to put in the effort worthy of someone harvesting such an animal! When the Minnesota DNR attempts to artificially increase the number of trophy bucks, as by this rule, they only cheapen the experience of the hunt. The only true beneficiaries of having more than normal levels of trophy class bucks in the Zone are those who seek to market them for monetary gain.

I am behind this point.

Quote:

Where as: For proper identification to take place under this rule the animal needs to feel unthreatened and unaware it is being hunted. The only legal hunting method that would accomplish this is to ambush the deer most likely from an elevated stand. Hunting from elevated stands result in over half of all hunting accidents. This method of hunting would be unsafe for many older hunters.

Extremely weak argument again. The same could be true for buck only season and the record shows this is not a problem. Actually, I would suspect this is an argument in favor of APR because it does force the hunter to not take fleeting shots.

Quote:

Where as: This rule discriminates against persons with less than perfect eye sight. For they are expected to determine an animal’s legal status ( a legally defined point being a point one inch long or longer) by counting the legal antler points on one of both sides of the rack even when the animal is in low light, moving or in cover . At the very least persons with medical conditions that limit vision and persons over a certain age should be afforded the same exemption as the 17 and under age group who are likely to have better vision.

This is not only weak but a very bad argument. Any hunter that doesn’t have the eyesight to properly identify his/her target shouldn’t be using a firearm. This also would be the same for buck only hunting.

[BigNasty]

Here is a e-mail I got today about a Town Hall Meeting if anyone wants to attend. I know it's short notice, but like I said, I just got it.

Update about 'Support the continuation and expansion of Antler Point Restrictions in Minnesota - SF 943 and HF984' on Change.org

Thanks to everyone who spread the word about this petition last week. We gained over 250 signatures! Even more important, I have met with several Representatives and Senators over this past week and they have noted the volume of emails. Our efforts are working! Just a reminder, there is a town hall meeting to provide input on this issue.

Here is the information on the townhall meeting:

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

6:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.

Minnesota State College

Southeast Technical Student Center

1250 Homer Road

Winona, MN

Park in the rear lot and enter door H or J

Ted Wawrzyniak

[psepuncher]

Posted: Thursday, April 14, 2011 10:00 am

PA: Biologist says PGC deer numbers are deceptive By Jeff Mulhollem Editor | 1 comment

State College, Pa. - An independent wildlife scientist who has been sharply critical of the Pennsylvania Game Commission's deer-management program has issued a document questioning 2010-11 harvest estimates recently released by the agency.

In the report titled, "An Independent Assessment of the Game Commission's Estimated Annual Deer Harvests (2000-2010)," John Eveland, of Delmont, contends that the commission's calculations are not realistic or credible.

"The Game Commission claims that an average of 333,338 deer have been harvested by hunters per year during the past six years," he said.

"That's an unlikely circumstance given that in order to support such a harvest it would require a corresponding average summer deer density of 51 deer per square mile on every square mile of forestland and woodlot and on every parcel of agricultural cropland and pasture land in the commonwealth."

---------

from past recent years of abundant antlerless tag alocations.

{passing out to many doe tags}

I'd venture well to say the same results will happen here too.

Antler point restrictions are not worth the paper they were written on.

It only apeases a socialistic group of elitiest. Not one ioda of confirmation proves antler point restrictions improves herd animals of any group. Pennsylvania still boasts of 45% bucks harvested are yearlings.

As far as education , It has improved some lackadaisical skills of mathmatics, Many of which see 4 as the terminating de facto....sad.

[jigglestick]

For what it's worth, I do not support state-wide APR. I feel it’s main purpose is to promote a standard to appease a select group of hunters who want to simplify their ability to achieve their idea of success. Trophy deer are out there and I am not convinced that the number of bucks reaching trophy status is necessarily a direct reflection of the health of the deer herd.

I could support designating certain numbers of hunting areas for APR throughout the state. Be that as it may, I read through this petition and I will not sign because I feel it is poorly written and presents weak argument.

I woulod say the same thing but not quite as well put.

agree 100%

the ONLY reason for antler point restrictions in my eyes is to increase the number of larger antlered deer making it easier for those who do not have the property or means to practice quality deer management to bag a "trophy".

I know how about roll up your sleeves, do your home work, scout, scout, scout, then hunt. it works.

I am all for no cross tagging and I am not for antler point restrictions.

[Cliff Wagenbach]

I am also against antler point restrictions!

Let deer hunting remain deer hunting, not antler hunting!

Cliff

[nonteepical]

Not one ioda of confirmation proves antler point restrictions improves herd animals of any group. Pennsylvania still boasts of 45% bucks harvested are yearlings.

Before APR's in Pennsylvania they were killing 80%, 1.5 year old bucks thats why apr's were put in place now it's at 45%. So before apr's 20% of bucks got to move into another year class and now 55% get to live to be 2.5 years old. Theres your ioda of proof.

I think everyone for APR's in minnesota would be extatic with that number. We are currently at 30% moving on to be a 2.5 year old.

[Getanet]

Before APR's in Pennsylvania they were killing 80%, 1.5 year old bucks thats why apr's were put in place now it's at 45%. So before apr's 20% of bucks got to move into another year class and now 55% get to live to be 2.5 years old. Theres your ioda of proof.

I think everyone for APR's in minnesota would be extatic with that number. We are currently at 30% moving on to be a 2.5 year old.

Nonteepical, I think your math is way off. You're only taking into account how many were shot, not the total population.

I keep seeing those in favor of APR state that 65% of bucks shot in MN are 1.5 years old. I find that to be a highly dubious claim – especially since the only place I’ve found it attributed to is an article from the QDMA that essentially states at the beginning the information may not be accurate.

Even IF that WAS the case, that is nowhere near equivalent to saying that only 35% of bucks in MN make it to their second birthday. Not even close.

We have roughly 1 million whitetail deer in MN. In 2010, hunters shot 98,834 bucks. I’ll even spot folks the 65% figure. That’s 64,242 yearling bucks. For the sake of simple math, I’ll assume roughly a 50/50 split of bucks and does among the 1 million population. So out of roughly 500,000 bucks we shoot about 20% of them, and 13% of those are yearlings.

The point of all this fuzzy math is that less than half of hunters even get a deer and less than half of those shoot a buck with any type of legal antlers. The population of deer in MN is plenty high to support multiple ways of hunting and there’s no need to ban anything.

[jigglestick]

so...where do they keep track of what bucks have been shot?

I have never been asked when registering my deer how many points it has.

must be that extrapolation thing and randome questioning by who?

[nonteepical]

Getanet, I understand where your coming from but your math is fuzzy on it's own, i wish our buck to doe ratio was 1:1 or 50/50, but i'd put it at 3 does to 1 buck, so in a one million deer population thats 750,000 does to 250,000 bucks. Now kill off 65% of your yearlings for 30 years and what kind of age class of bucks do you have? what percent make it to 4.5 or their full potential of maturity of 5.5-6.5 years old?