Petition to Keep the Antler Point Restrictions in MN

[Getanet]

You still don't seem to get my point. We're not killing 65% of all yearling bucks every year. 65% of only the bucks we shoot would be yearlings. Again, I would argue the 65% figure is highly questionable based on the way MN deer tags work.

If you're trying to say that each year we wipe out 65% of the previous year-class bucks than after just a couple years we would be talking about putting whitetail deer on some type of protected species list.

I have no problem saying we don't have a 50/50 doe to buck structure, but if you truly believe it's that off balance you should be supporting a ban on all bucks.

[pulleye16]

Great points getanet!

[Musky Buck]

All I know for sure is what's behind the house each summer and around the 2 -3 sections that I observe and have since the 70's. Bachelor herd of bucks has shifted from having several meaning out of 10 maybe half were shootable to out of 5 maybe 1 is shootable, many guys in our area wait at least the first weekend for that shootable or at least day 1 they wait, but then start banging any antlered buck with no concern about having a supply of tags at their disposal, give these old zone 4 bangers even more days to bang and we are in a rut around our area with bow and muzzy and road kill and buck numbers are lower and quality bucks are in the minority big time. I have another area where people practice go grow and sure enough there's older bucks in the area, bachelor herds reflect that each summer, and wintering herds reflect the large numbers of yearling bucks that survived the hunt as well as more mature bucks that have wisened up becoming 2.5 or older.

[psepuncher]

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

I wonder why that co-relates with the number of license sales.

the number of hunters in America declined from about 15.7 million in 1991 to 14.5 million today (U.S. population is 308 million). Some states are losing hunters at a faster rate. Since 1980, New Jersey hunters declined by 54 percent, California by 45 percent, and only 1 percent of those states' residents now hunt. Pennsylvania's change in hunter numbers is mid-range, losing 23 percent since 1980,

Take a look at the total deer population and then completly ignore it.

what needs to be realized is actual harvest data vs. license sales.

for over six years...it's still unchanged on percentage of yearling bucks harvested.

Not much of a cheerleading event if you ask me.

Yearling bucks comprised 49 percent of the 2009-10 antlered harvest. Since 2003, the percent of yearling bucks in the annual harvest has varied between 49 and 56 percent. Button bucks represented 22 percent of the antlerless harvest, which is the same percentage from the 2008-09 harvest.

[BobT]

I wonder how they obtain the data for these statistics. Every deer I've registered in my lifetime only required one thing - Sex of the animal. I've never been asked the size of the rack. I've never been asked to provide the age, as if I could be trusted to get that right. I've never been required to weigh it, although scales have been around in the past but not lately. In fact, I can only remember maybe one time in my almost 40 years of hunting that a registration agent ever actually looked at my deer and that was because it was a nice deer and he wanted to see it.

I suspect that all these statistics being thrown around are nothing more than guesses and opinion and way far away from being anything closely resembling a scientific study.

[NoWiser]

I wonder how they obtain the data for these statistics. Every deer I've registered in my lifetime only required one thing - Sex of the animal. I've never been asked the size of the rack. I've never been asked to provide the age, as if I could be trusted to get that right. I've never been required to weigh it, although scales have been around in the past but not lately. In fact, I can only remember maybe one time in my almost 40 years of hunting that a registration agent ever actually looked at my deer and that was because it was a nice deer and he wanted to see it.

I suspect that all these statistics being thrown around are nothing more than guesses and opinion and way far away from being anything closely resembling a scientific study.

Every deer I've ever registered has asked if it is an adult or a fawn, as well as sex of the deer.

I think the statistics are a lot more accurate than what you think.

[Getanet]

You are correct NoWiser, except any buck with antlers over 3" would be registered an adult buck. Our options are adult male, adult female, fawn male, fawn female. There's no "Yearling" classification and a male fawn is considered antlerless and isn't what the APR folks are referring to as yearlings. They're talking primarily about spikes and forks, which our registration process keeps no records of.

So I'm pretty skeptical of the "Yearling" stats, but I'm very confident in the Deer Harvest Reports the DNR makes available after each season.

[jigglestick]

no, I'm with BobT on this one.

with the liberal number of antlerless permits in the past five years or so, you can't convince me that the number of bucks total harvested hasnt gone down and you will claim that it's because of a lack of buck to help support your cause.

I want to know, where...WHERE are they getting their data from. all you guys quoting numbers, lets see where it came from. nobody can dispute facts, but I have not seen one fact out here yet, just numbers, spun to support an agenda.

[Getanet]

JiggleStick, in case I wasn't clear, let me clarify. I think the "Yearling" stats are highly suspect. Other states may be different, but MN only captures Adult Buck. A spike or a 30-pt would be an Adult Buck so where folks get the "Yearling" stats I have absolutely no idea and I'm not sure anyone does.

As for specific harvest stats, the MN DNR makes a very detailed Harvest Report available each year. It's a 44-page PDF that provides so much data that it seems almost inconceivable that if they had a "Yearling" stat it wouldn't be included. You can find the link here, the data is pretty interesting:

http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/recreation/hunting/deer/2010-harvestreport.pdf

[bigbucks]

I agree those stats aren't real accurate, the only thing they have going for them is the same people that are honest about what they shot one year probably are every year, so over time the trends would still be significant.

I think the only way they could track true yearling bucks is by a DNR person looking at them & using the sampling of how many of those they looked at from year to year, but they'd have to sample a lot. I know a lot of fawns are shot that optimistic hunters think are yearlings & they call them adults. Almost every 6 pointer would be called an adult as opposed to a yearling if that option were available, yet almost all 6 pointers & some little 8's in our area are yearlings.

[PostFrontal]

I didn't do any scientific research, but I am seeing most of the people that are against APR don't hunt in Zone 3. (of course there are some in Zone 3 that are against it as well) That is fine if you don't want it in the other zones, but why would you be against the majority of us who hunt in zone 3 that want to see through the 3 years of APR, and to be able to manage the herd in SE MN the way we would like. What does that have to do with where you hunt? Would you like me to come into Zone 1 and say you have to use a slug gun like we have to in Zone 3 because it is safer and not fair you get to use a rifle. Or all your areas have to be buck only because the area I hunt is in Zone 3? I wouldn't, and believe that the hunters in coordination with the DNR, that hunt zone 1, would know better than me how to manage the herd they hunt, and how they hunt them.

I understand your legitimate concern that it may spread to your zones, but APR was implemented after 10 YEARS of surveys, public input meetings, and research with the majority of hunters in Zone 3 for APR or had no opinion. I would think you could take some comfort in the fact that if it did surface in the other zones that the DNR would follow the same procedure. That is unless someone had a connection to a politician in the other zones, say hypothetically Zone 2, that went into the legislature and introduced a bill that said Zone 2 should be APR even though the majority of hunters in Zone 2 didn't want APR...seems familiar, but in the reverse...but I assume from the prior posts you would be ok with that instead of the DNR managing it with public input.

I suppose, even though I don't hunt Zone 2, I should then take all your arguments you are using against APR in Zone 3 where you don't hunt, and use them the same way you are now.

Let us manage the herd we hunt in Zone 3 the way we want to through the DNR. Let the 3 years of APR run its course and then we, in Zone 3, can reevaluate whether we want to continue it, in Zone 3, or not.

[Getanet]

PostFrontal, I understand your feelings on this and would probably feel the same way in your shoes, but honestly APRs are now a political issue and that's not how politics work. If you wait until an issue impacts your specific part of the world more than likely its too late.

Look at nearly any political issue. Do you think state workers in MN, or across the country for that matter - weren't keenly focused on the brouhaha in WI, forming and voicing their own opinions?

That may not be the answer you want to hear, but that's the best answer I can give you.

[SandPoint]

I am not for apr's and I think that the reason other hunters in other zones don't want them is because we know it will spread and it wont stay just zone three. So other hunters from other zones(including my self) feel the need to express our feelings now. I also dont think it was an overwheelming majority that wanted an apr( I thought it was closer to 50/50). My thinking is we buy a deer tag for the chance to harvest a deer. If you want to wait for a bigger one thats great if you dont, thats great too. I just dont like the thought of buying an 8 point buck tag just because some think its wrong to shoot a smaller buck, so the deer they shoot have a few more inches on them next year. Because thats what aprs are really about, INCHES not heard health. But thats just my opinion.

[psepuncher]

for anyone thinking that I...as and me,

is pulling numbers from under my hat....

I'm following field notes from our MN DNR white-tail expert

Marrett Grund. 11 year vet of deer research.

If you think the numbers are invalid or mostly diplorable get your own conclusions from an representative from a local area wildlife research biologist...like I did. .]

Marrett Grund worked for both Pennsylvania and MN

here you'll find a podcast interview with Marrett....push play.

http://foremosthunting.blogspot.com/2011/01/antler-point-restrictions-with-marrett.html

[PostFrontal]

I agree with you on that Getanet, but the problem I have is that it hasn't been brought up to do it in other zones, except that when it was being implemented in Zone 3 all I saw from most including the DNR is that it wouldn't be socially acceptable, the majority were against it, and some areas couldn't support it in other zones.

Everything I am seeing is about Zone 3. Why do people need to invent an issue for themselves that hasn't even come up to start the discussion, and somehow Zone 3 applies to them? Then they are going to keep us who want it from doing it too. Frustrating.

Here's one I am going to make up, insert myself, and push for that has nothing to do with me, but there is a longshot that it may happen, even though noone has brought it up, so I am going to voice my opinion about. I don't like that hunters in 1A get a 16 day deer season, and we only get 9 days. I am going to start a movement to get their season shortened to 9 days like we have.

I will be emailing my representative Gen Olson shortly.

[Getanet]

PostFrontal, I only wish we were making the argument up. There are numerous threads on HSO about APR, and nearly every one has plenty of folks that essentially say, "I'm all for it. I want to see it statewide."

Not to mention, have you read the petition this thread is about? The title says it all, and I've highlighted the important parts

"Support the continuation and expansion of Antler Point Restrictions"

If I thought APR would be confined to Zone 3 and Zone 3 only, with no potential for it ever expanding, I'd be silent on this issue.

[PostFrontal]

If you read the petition you would have seen there is nothing in there about expanding APR. The headline was a bad choice of words that I don't agree with but is definitely not evidence. This petition was, once again like everything else, about zone 3.

Of course there are people on these forums that are for expanding it. Just like there are ones against it. That is what a forum is for. But you can't use a forum discussion as evidence either of a legitimate push to expand APR through the DNR or legislature.

I read on a forum where they saw an alligator in Mille Lacs. And another guy saw it too. Guess that would be considered evidence with this line of thinking.

Show me the public meetings that have been held for zones 1 and 2 about expanding APR to them. The DNR press releases about expanding them.

[Getanet]

If you read the petition you would have seen there is nothing in there about expanding APR. The headline was a bad choice of words that I don't agree with but is definitely not evidence. This petition was, once again like everything else, about zone 3.

[psepuncher]

If Minnesota's APR regulations prove biologically sound as well as acceptable to hunters, they could be used in other areas of the state ....Cornicelli says

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/volunteer/janfeb06/boom.html

I think I read {er, red} that correctly.

[psepuncher]

Show me the public meetings that have been held for zones 1 and 2 about expanding APR to them. The DNR press releases about expanding them.

Jim went on to say that moving the 3A season out of the peak of the rut (after) remains the change that we most strongly favor. At this time, one of the changes BWA does not favor is point restrictions. This method of herd management is a common one used in other states when trying to influence the structure of their herds. We have conferred extensively with out-of-state biologists about the pros and cons of point restrictions. This information has shown us that point restrictions have been the easiest solution to implement herd changes. However, we have learned from the same people that in a productive herd like ours, there would be limited success with point restrictions; especially in the long run. These biologists also pointed out to us that to achieve success with point restrictions, it is usually essential to use them in conjunction with minimum antler widths.

After Jim’s presentation, there was an hour of discussion on various topics relating to deer herd management. Lou Cornicelli talked about the pluses and minuses of some past hunter surveys and briefly touched on the new hunter survey that will be conducted in zones 2 and 3 in the next few months.

The discussion continued on the advantages and disadvantages of the season timing, buck party hunting, and the availability of doe permits. Total herd overpopulation problems and hunter land access were also part of the conversation.

http://www.blufflandwhitetails.org/spring2005newsletter.html#top_of_doc

[PostFrontal]

...prove biologically sound as well as acceptable to hunters...

Thank you for proving my point.

[pulleye16]

If Minnesota's APR regulations prove biologically sound as well as acceptable to hunters, they could be used in other areas of the state ....Cornicelli says

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/volunteer/janfeb06/boom.html

I think I read {er, red} that correctly.

If this is what he is saying, then why isen't the hunt off the rut? This "IS" acceptable to hunters "AND" biologically sound. I think APR's are pushed by a certain group with deep pockets...otherwise moving the date off the rut would be the ONLY acceptable way to make both groups (meat/antler) happy!

[lakevet]

If Minnesota's APR regulations prove biologically sound as well as acceptable to hunters, they could be used in other areas of the state ....Cornicelli says

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/volunteer/janfeb06/boom.html

I think I read {er, red} that correctly.

Here is a quote from above article.

"Most hunters harvest one deer each season. Rather than harvesting a young buck, we'd like to see hunters harvest more does in areas with high deer populations," says Lou Cornicelli, DNR big game program coordinator. "Antler point restrictions can shift the harvest pressure to does when hunters have good doe hunting opportunities."

The angles on APR's and cross tagging bucks ban are multiple to say the least. I am seeing more people on both sides stepping back a little and trying to find facts that are as dependable as possible. With all the bloody noses, hopefully the end result will be more understanding, but the APR's and cross tagging ban are making deep rifts in hunting community, including some deer camps this fall. A lot of money and effort being expended on these very divisive regulations. Remember, they were not supported by 90% of the hunters, but far less than that.

Is this worth it?

Going forward I see several issues.

1) Will these regs be evaluated on the criteria originally stated? Example: everyone talks about wanting more older bucks, but the primary reason for these regs is to encourage hunters to shoot more does without having to go to earn a buck. The antlerless harvest increase expected did not happen in 2010. I would prefer that the process unfolds as planned and then evaluated BY ALL with an open mind and clear heads on the basis of the best biological facts available. If someone doesn't have a current, up to date stat/fact to support tell them to go back and get it and then you will spend time listening to their point of view.

2) What stat do we believe for deciding if fewer young bucks are shot?

3) IF FEWER YOUNG BUCKS ARE SHOT IS IT DUE TO NEW REGS OR THAT THE TREND OF SHOOTING FEWER YOUNG BUCKS WAS ALREADY HAPPENING DUE TO EDUCATION & PEER PRESSURE RESULTING IN A INTERNAL SHIFT IN HUNTER MINDSET? As in another post I mention 2011 QDMA report says Minnesota as of 2009 ( before new regs) experienced a STATEWIDE dramatic reduction (from 67% down to 41%) in the % of young bucks in the harvest. They did not have 2010 stats. QDMA biologists say 2009 MN % young bucks in deer harvest was below the Midwest average. This occurred, again statewide with buck cross tagging (I legally gifted my tag to a family member) and without APR's. If hunters are shifting on their own, it means no disruption of traditions of many AND fewer young bucks in harvest. This avoids all the backlash we now are seeing. If the QDMA biologists are accurate, we have just started down the path of hunters VOLUNtARILY letting little bucks go in large enough numbers to be dramatic. If this is a statewide trend for several years, would that satisfy those of you wanting APR's and cross tagging buck ban?

4) If it is a combination of the above factors (hunter attitude, cross tagging, apr's), how much do we credit each one?

5) Do we evaluate solely on biological basis and let hunters use a wider variety of hunting styles/traditions, or do we emphasize social reasons, personal dislikes of others way of hunting, even if stats/ biology behind banning their way of hunting is very weak. As Lou says in the above quote most hunters only shoot one deer, yet we have a cross tagging ban. Where are the biology/harvest stats to support the ban have a significant impact?

I propose that those of us who don't want these regs in our area shoot more does, pass on a few (not all) dumb young bucks, and prove that the regs are not needed. Then we can spend all the time and money on taking our kids hunting on land that access has been purchased for all to enjoy, instead of the way we are spending it now.

Lastly I want to say all at the DNR, of who Lou is the most visible, are to be congratulated and treated civilly with respect, as I believe they want and are working hard to do their best for deer and deer hunters. I may not always agree, but do appreciate their efforts!

Lakevet

p.s. the 2011 QDMA report says NATIONWIDE we are now in a downward trend for book bucks being ENTERED. One reason stated is that hunters don't want all the attention/headaches that come with the word getting out of a book buck so they are keeping their mouths shut and not entering them. So can we use # of book bucks as a criteria?? Probably not without at least qualifying that the number has social factors impacting negatively. The true # of book bucks actually shot is not known.

[lichen fox]

All I can say is hopefully our new governor has as much guts as Pawlenty! If you remember, last year he vetoed the Omnibus game & fish bill...simply saying "the legistature" was overstepping it's boundries!

What does a lawyer know about wildlife biology anyway?

Would you take your faithful hunting dog to your state representative for his rabies shots?

It's the same thing going on as last year...special interest lobbiests pressuring the legislators to get what they want because they can't get the DNR to do it their way! If they get their way, they'll simply be taking a "potential" tool out of the DNR's managment toolbox...Whether that tool would have ever been deemed usable in MN deer herd management will never be known if it passes...if it gets through, I sure hope the governor veto's it!

Now, I gotta go see my Senator about this pain I've been having in my hip!

[Gopher_Guy]

If this is what he is saying, then why isen't the hunt off the rut? This "IS" acceptable to hunters "AND" biologically sound. I think APR's are pushed by a certain group with deep pockets...otherwise moving the date off the rut would be the ONLY acceptable way to make both groups (meat/antler) happy!

Good luck, that will never happen. Reason being $$$$. If MN and WI had their gun seasons on the same dates both states would lose a lot of revenue from out of state license sales, hotels, restaurants, etc.

In 2009 I hunted Iowa, just over the MN/IA border. Saw more big deer on public land than I ever have here. Yes they have fewer hunters but their gun season does not start until December. By December in MN we have had a month of solid gun hunting with 2 more weeks left for muzzleloader.

Last year in MN I had a really good year. I saw a ton of bucks, most yearlings and 2 year olds but did see at least 3 that were over 3 years old and one that was a borderline B&C buck. Next year should be even better with the AR in place for its 2nd season.

There is a bit of a catch 22 however - more big deer and we wind up like Illinois or Kansas with everyone who has deep pockets kicking out the avg joe hunter. That's the last thing we want. I enjoy hunting, never get a big buck but I do enjoy seeing them.