Petition to Keep the Antler Point Restrictions in MN

[lichen fox]

The DNR's ultimate goal here is to most efficiently manage the numbers of deer per square mile...period! Thus, providing a healthier, more balanced herd...APR's are just a tool...the "more restrictions" you place on any one part of the herd will result in more pressure put on another part of the herd...restrict buck harvest any way you can and more anterless deer will be harvested....simple math...And as for the Pennsylvania comparrison's, that info that Marrot was part of came from a study that was done by the Penn. audobon society regarding forest health and how deer effect it...I've included the title and a "little bit" of info from it below if anyone wants to google it...it's well over 300 pgs...but interesting, to say the least...in any case, I don't understand why the legislature is even involved in a issue like this! Penn. had/has a huge deer "problem"...if you read some of the info in the report you'll see that...yes, 40 deer per square mile was not uncommon...all the reccomendations in this report are to reduce that population, not neccesarily to grow bigger bucks...heck it even includes suggestions and costs on introducing contraceptives to the deer population! Bottom line, the deer in Penn. were ruining the forests, changing what regrowth came back after overbrowsing occured, etc....

"Managing White-tailed Deer in Forest Habitat

From an Ecosystem Perspective"

With the exception of a vocal minority of hunters, there is a broad consensus that deer densities in Pennsylvania are too high from an ecosystem perspective. In a 2003 survey of Pennsylvanians, the general public ranked managing deer to promote healthy and sustainable forests highest among potential goals (average 7.5 of 10) and hunters and anglers ranked it even higher (7.8 of 10). Pennsylvania hunters and anglers ranked managing deer to promote healthy and sustainable forests higher than managing deer to promote hunting opportunities (7.8 vs. 7.1 of 10). The stakeholder group P.G.C. convened to recommend goals and

objectives for its statewide deer management plan also ranked managing deer to promote healthy forests and ecosystems as its top goal.

[BigNasty]

As some of you are aware there was a Town Hall meeting last week, here is a e-mail I received on how it went for those that wish to read it and continue your support. Thanks,BN

E-mail:

Many of you know that we had a fairly successful meeting last Wednesday. Additionally, the language to take the APR and cross-tagging language out of zone 3 next year has remained out of the Senate file. This is not done, however. The two bills now go to a Conference Committee and the language could very easily be added there. So we have to keep pressure on the members of this committee to keep that language out. There are members from both the Senate and House on the Committee. I have created another page on Change.org that targets the Committee members. Here is the link:

http://www.change.org/petitions/do-not-change-zone-3-deer-hunting-regulations

We need you to all go sign that petition like you did the other one. This is not necessarily meant to be a petition, it is just a means for you to easily contact the members of the Committee. When you sign it, a letter goes to each one of them. Feel free to spread the word on this one again.

Thanks

Ted W

[PostFrontal]

I received an email from Representative Drazkowski regarding the reasons for his carring the bill to repeal APR. I appreciated him sending me the email. I was expecting him to outline biological, social, and/or even another view that was opposite of mine that while I didn't agree with, I could see his reasoning and just agree to disagree.

Instead, all his reasoning was based on misinformation and speculative theory like ones we would come up with when sitting in a fishing boat on why the fish weren't biting. Tieing together things that had nothing to with each other and stating them as fact.

It is even more concerning when one would think that our representatives in the legislature may be doing the same thing with other bills that affect our lives.

I replied to his email, so waiting to see if he will respond back.

[BobT]

Instead, all his reasoning was based on misinformation and speculative theory like ones we would come up with when sitting in a fishing boat on why the fish weren't biting. Tieing together things that had nothing to with each other and stating them as fact.

It is even more concerning when one would think that our representatives in the legislature may be doing the same thing with other bills that affect our lives.

Your assessment isn't surprising. I would hope a person elected by the people to represent the people would be more interested in exercising due diligence but after all, they are just people like you, me, and our neighbor. They have their views, some based on fact and some based on emotion, and they act on those views.

[Gopher_Guy]

I received an email from Representative Drazkowski regarding the reasons for his carring the bill to repeal APR. I appreciated him sending me the email. I was expecting him to outline biological, social, and/or even another view that was opposite of mine that while I didn't agree with, I could see his reasoning and just agree to disagree.

Instead, all his reasoning was based on misinformation and speculative theory like ones we would come up with when sitting in a fishing boat on why the fish weren't biting. Tieing together things that had nothing to with each other and stating them as fact.

It is even more concerning when one would think that our representatives in the legislature may be doing the same thing with other bills that affect our lives.

I replied to his email, so waiting to see if he will respond back.

[PurpleFloyd]

If they want bigger bucks in zone 3 they should try leaving 100-200 acres of standing corn in each section through the deer season and post them. That is what we get in most seasons in zone 2 and when that happens you are lucky to see any deer let alone think about the luxury of letting them walk by like cattle going to pasture until just the right one stumbles by.

[BobT]

I have to agree with Gopher_Guy and others. I don't agree with across-the-board APR but I also see the excuses the other side uses as very weak arguments. These arguments sound a lot like the same ones used to fight the buck-only rulings way back. Arguments like, "There will be untold numbers of deer shot and left lay because they were misidentified" and "We will move to another state or area to do our hunting" and others. These are bogus arguments.

I don't support across-the-board APR simply because I don't want to be restricted in that way. I don't believe it is necessary to the health of the deer herd because I see the herd as already being healthier than it has ever been in recorded history. I also think that it is fair and appropriate to consider setting aside some areas within our state to experiment with APR in order to cater to those hunters that do support this idea. Those of us that enjoy hunting and are satisfied with taking less than trophy class deer already have ample opportunity. I think it is also fair to spread those areas around the state so all of them have some opportunity within a reasonable distance from home. As it is now, all those that favor APR are required to travel all the way to the SE portion of the state and this isn’t fair to those that live in Baudette, I-Falls, or Grand Marais. Likewise, I think it is unfair for APR proponents to push for legislation that forces their ideals upon everyone else. We can work together and it doesn’t have to be that difficult.

[Spike76]

There shouldn't be antler restriction in Minnesota in any zone. This is hunting, and Minnesota has many nice deer. There is alot more to deer hunting then shooting a big deer.

[JakeJ_Mn]

There shouldn't be antler restriction in Minnesota in any zone. This is hunting, and Minnesota has many nice deer. There is alot more to deer hunting then shooting a big deer.

+1

Too many who think they are REAL hunters want the deer for themselves IMO by restricting others with nonsense rules. They have been watching too many outdoors hunting TV programs.

I am a big fan of Ted Nugent - he promotes preservation as well as the enjoyment of hunting. Many other states allow baiting and have shown no increase in the myterious CWD. Minnesota should wake up and get inline with others states.

[Musky Buck]

Glad you are not in charge Jake. Yea, lets just do what other states do, they are smarter than us, here's a clue, it works for their deer management program. If you can't get a deer without baiting them give it up and get on the venison roadkill program. You get 25 or 32 gun days to hunt 100+ with a bow, through the rut, if that doesn't provide enough chance to bag a deer what more do you really need ? So you sit stand madder than a wet hen thinking geez, parts of Wisc. can bait here's another clue, give up on MN and go hunt where you can bait. Sorry, I think Ted Nugent is a very marginal face in the hunting genre, I believe most of us are happy he hunts etc. and promotes it, but I think a half way house is calling his name as well in the near future.

[Bear55]

I have to agree with Gopher_Guy and others. I don't agree with across-the-board APR but I also see the excuses the other side uses as very weak arguments. These arguments sound a lot like the same ones used to fight the buck-only rulings way back. Arguments like, "There will be untold numbers of deer shot and left lay because they were misidentified" and "We will move to another state or area to do our hunting" and others. These are bogus arguments.

I don't support across-the-board APR simply because I don't want to be restricted in that way. I don't believe it is necessary to the health of the deer herd because I see the herd as already being healthier than it has ever been in recorded history. I also think that it is fair and appropriate to consider setting aside some areas within our state to experiment with APR in order to cater to those hunters that do support this idea. Those of us that enjoy hunting and are satisfied with taking less than trophy class deer already have ample opportunity. I think it is also fair to spread those areas around the state so all of them have some opportunity within a reasonable distance from home. As it is now, all those that favor APR are required to travel all the way to the SE portion of the state and this isn’t fair to those that live in Baudette, I-Falls, or Grand Marais. Likewise, I think it is unfair for APR proponents to push for legislation that forces their ideals upon everyone else. We can work together and it doesn’t have to be that difficult.

Very good post BobT, I don't think I could have said it better myself.