Let antler-point experiment play out

[Steve_Plantz]

Here is an intresting artical in the Rochester Post Bulletin that I thought I would share with all the hard core deer hunters here.

Quote:

In my e-mail box on Wednesday, I received a petition asking me to support the effort to overturn antler-point restrictions in Zone 3 and to once again make it legal for one hunter to shoot multiple bucks, then "cross-tag" them with his buddies' tags.

Below is a portion of the petition's wording. And, as the great newspaper humorist Dave Barry used to say: I'm not making this up.

"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!"

Wow. I didn't know PETA had taken a side on the antler-point rules.

Or consider this interesting claim: "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."

Logically, I have no choice but to conclude that those who oppose antler point restrictions — including the Minnesota Deer Hunters Association — are now opposed to "ambushing" deer from an elevated position. I expect Rep. Steve Drazkowski to introduce a tree stand ban at his earliest convenience.

Frankly, after I got done laughing at the absurdity of this document, I became rather depressed. We were supposed to be in a three-year window when the arguments could stop and the results would be allowed to speak for themselves. But on Wednesday, hunters, legislators and DNR officials once again had to gather in Winona to rehash the same old arguments.

I heartily endorse the ban on cross-tagging. One buck is enough for anyone. I have mixed feelings about the APRs, but the science seems solid, and in other states they've worked well. As a guy who's seen one mature buck during the last six hunting seasons (five yards outside my bow range), I'm ready to try something new.

Which brings me to back Wednesday's meeting. I'd like to respond to some of the claims I heard in Winona.

• To those who said last year was the worst year of hunting they've ever had, I say that this year might be their best, with more 10- and 12-point bucks in southeastern Minnesota than at any time in the past 50 years — and 2012 could be absolutely eye-popping.

• To the hunters who say that more big bucks will mean decreased access for the average hunter, I'd say, "What access?" Many landowners are trying to manage their own deer right now, so the chance of knocking on a door and obtaining permission to hunt private land isn't just remote — it's pretty much non-existent. I know that from personal experience. If you don't own land or have close friends or relatives who do, you spend your time on public land or hope you get drawn for a state park hunt.

• To the Minnesota Deer Hunters Association, which says the new rules are a threat to family hunting traditions, I'd point out that hunters up to age 17 can still shoot any deer they see. Seems like this would encourage party hunters to include a lot more young hunters in their group, and to post them in places where they're likely to see a lot of deer and get a lot of opportunity. What's the downside? Would the adults be green with envy that the kids are allowed to shoot a forkhorn?

• To the hunter who suggested that the APRs be enforced only on state-owned land, I'd point out that although land can be owned, wildlife cannot. The deer in your woodlot belong to no one — and to everyone.

• To those who say "Educate, don't regulate," I'd ask if they meant to say "Legislate, don't regulate." After all, when you ask a legislator to hamstring the DNR, that's exactly what you're doing.

• To everyone who's threatened to quit hunting deer if you don't get your way, I'd suggest that there are plenty of pawn shops that would buy your guns. And if you're lucky, those guns will still be there for you to buy back next fall after you see that big buck on the back 40.

• To Rep. Steve Drazkowski, who seems to believe there was a sub-legal buck left to rot behind every tree in Zone 3 last year, I'd ask if he bothered to confirm that claim with the DNR before he became a crusader against change. Does he have photos of this alleged wanton waste? Or perhaps some trail-cam pictures of those 140-inch six-pointers that we keep hearing about?

• And finally, to everyone who seems so dead-set on preventing this three-year experiment from running its course, I'd simply ask this: What are you afraid of? That it might actually work?

Eric Atherton is an editorial writer for the Post-Bulletin and an avid outdoorsman. He can be reached at [email protected].

[Sorgy]

WOW--- OUTSTANDING POST Steve

Steve I buy all of your arguments. I think you hit every nail on the head.

I am 100 percent behind letting the experiment play out.

Thank You for bringing this to the for-front.

I hunt Northern St Louis County and we have been trying to let the younger bucks walk. The kids in our group have even passed on young bucks that they could shoot. They are having a great hunting experience without necessarily killing a deer.

Steve

[DHost21]

What a perfect article! Thanks for posting!

[hockeybc69]

A breath of fresh air there!!!!!!!

[InTheNorthwoods]

This same opinion has been expressed many different ways on here for the past several years. The editorialist put it all together in a nice way, but I can assure you that the same detractors will show up and attempt to dissect the editorial. It is a merry-go-round.

It will be the same old "what are you afraid of's/it could be so much better for everyone" v. the "you only care about antlers/its good enough right now" argument. I happen to agree with the editorial, but I must admit, it is hard to convince those who are arguing to "keep things the way they are" when things have been that way for so long and they've likely never had a chance to experience anything different. It is a "resist all change" mentality because "change" could possibly be for the worse.

[mrklean]

very interesting article thanks for posting

[PostFrontal]

Good article. I know he mentioned PETA but am assuming he is just using that for effect? Did he ever say who was behind the petition?

[BobT]

Despite opposing APR for an entire zone as this one is, I do stand behind this post's title and say now that it is in place, let it play out for the duration and then decide how to move forward.

If this proves to be beneficial as hoped then I personally would support setting aside smaller areas throughout the state with APR to give the opportunities it presents to those that want it. Perhaps set aside 3 to 4 ajacent management areas with APR restrictions in multiple areas throughout the state to provide the opportunities within reasonable distance for hunters while still leaving other areas to continue similarly to what we have today. Maybe that would be too hard to manage. I don't know.

[bigbucks]

I would still say public land only. Who determines, well this landowner can shoot any deer he wants & this one can't?

[InTheNorthwoods]

I would still say public land only. Who determines, well this landowner can shoot any deer he wants & this one can't?

The deer are owned by the state. So while individuals own the land, they don't own the animals on it, and don't get to regulate how the animals are managed. If we started to take the stance you suggest; why make landowners buy tags at all, and why not let landowners shoot every single deer they see?

[bigbucks]

Not what I meant. I just meant I feel for the guys that have plenty of deer on their land & feed them all year & don't care about antlers, but happen to be unlucky enough to own land where they put on the APR's. Suddenly their deer hunting may have taken a significant down fall in their eyes.

State land isn't the same, anybody can hunt any piece of state land they want. If you own land & pay for it, you are going to want to hunt there.

It's not the same as going from 1, 2, or 5 deer in your area, as that's based on population. APR has nothing to do with population. I'm all for bigger bucks & pass on small ones all the time, but that's purely because I choose not because I think the herd will suffer if I don't.

[TooTallTom]

Assuming that the experiment shows greater numbers of larger racks, what about implementing APR only in areas that are not subject to the antlerless lottery? That way, you can shoot just for meat if you want, or you're free to hold out for a legal buck. I understand that some fawn bucks would be taken, but it might be a good compromise.

For the record, I hunt way up north, and I'm glad we don't have the antler-point restrictions.

[InTheNorthwoods]

Not what I meant. I just meant I feel for the guys that have plenty of deer on their land & feed them all year & don't care about antlers, but happen to be unlucky enough to own land where they put on the APR's. Suddenly their deer hunting may have taken a significant down fall in their eyes.

State land isn't the same, anybody can hunt any piece of state land they want. If you own land & pay for it, you are going to want to hunt there.

It's not the same as going from 1, 2, or 5 deer in your area, as that's based on population. APR has nothing to do with population. I'm all for bigger bucks & pass on small ones all the time, but that's purely because I choose not because I think the herd will suffer if I don't.

I know exactly what you were saying. I just don't think owning land justifies being able to utilize the states' resource different than those who hunt on public land. Again, they are the states' deer, not the land owners. What would happen if this rule was public land only, is that Hunter A who is sitting on state land sees a 3x3 walk past him and he has to pass, the same 3x3 crosses an invisible line and walks onto Hunter B's private land and he blazes away. How is that fair to the two hunters who both bought a state deer hunting license, and how does that acheive the management goal the state has set/implemented for that area (with APR's)?

Someone can disagree with APR's all they want (in fact, I am not too keen on the idea myself), but deer managment regulations should be the same for everyone in that management region or your management ability is out the window.