Should the DNR sell "Fred's" Antlers

[DTro]

Some hunters are irate that antlers off a trophy buck taken by a poacher might be sold, though plans are still uncertain.

hide

How rich the irony, says Matt Stans, that the Department of Natural Resources seems tempted to dance with the same devil that has long enchanted poachers worldwide: money.

The DNR is considering selling the rack from a world-class 8-point buck that was killed illegally near Cannon Falls in 2009.

A bow hunter, and an ethical one, Stans knew well the lore and legend of the big whitetail. He and others who live in the countryside near him even had a nickname for the animal -- Fred -- and sightings of the big buck, usually fleeting and almost always after legal shooting hours, became part of the area's mythology.

"My neighbors and I spent a great deal of time and effort hunting for Fred," said Stans, a corporate pilot whose flight assignments take him to ports worldwide.

Stans' fascination with Fred knew no seasonal bounds. In summer he cultivated a food plot on his property, sometimes hauling buckets of water by hand to help the plantings prosper when rain was scarce.

Come hunting season, he would be in his bow stand as often as possible. And in spring, Stans hunted for Fred's sheds, two sets of which he was fortunate enough to find.

Then at 8:30 on Halloween night in 2009, Fred was gunned down in the dark by a shotgun during archery season, killed by a poacher.

Subsequently, Troy Alan Reinke of Cannon Falls pleaded guilty to three wildlife-related counts, including illegally possessing the trophy buck. At Reinke's sentencing, a Goodhue County district judge sent him to jail for a year and ordered that the antlers be used by the DNR to educate people about the public thievery that occurs when wildlife is killed illegally.

Fast forward.

Today, Stans and his hunting neighbors are aghast, if not irate, that the DNR has yet to formally include Fred's magnificent 8-point rack -- perhaps the most magnificent of its kind in history -- on its traveling "wall of shame" that displays the headgear of other illegally killed bucks.

The exhibit is intended to demonstrate the treasure -- literally the cream of the state's whitetail crop -- that is at risk when poaching, whether done for pride or profit, is allowed to fester without public condemnation and stiff penalties.

"At least the DNR by now could have mounted the rack on a head and cape and placed it in the DNR headquarters as an example of the cost to hunters and the public of poaching," Stans said.

That might happen some day. Until it does, if it does, the DNR is exploring other options -- including outright sale of the antlers, which by some estimates could fetch $200,000 or more -- or their "cloning," in which replicas would be made and possibly sold.

"It really hasn't gotten past the discussion stage," said DNR enforcement director Col. Jim Konrad. "But, really, this situation isn't any different from other confiscations we make and sell. We sell moose quarters, for instance, if we get them, and at one time we sold deer that we confiscated, or guns or other equipment."

Not so fast, says Stans. "The DNR doesn't own those antlers," he said. "They belong to the people of Minnesota and shouldn't be for sale. What's the difference, then, between the DNR selling them for profit and the poacher selling them for profit? What kind of message is that sending to the public?"

DNR Commissioner Tom Landwehr has joined the discussion about the antlers' fate, confirming in an e-mail to Stans the possibility of selling the original rack and keeping replicas for the Wall of Shame or other exhibits.

"If we can make some good money and still demonstrate the size of the antlers," Landwehr said, "then I think it's a good outcome."

Counters Stans: "The antlers are not theirs to sell. The DNR possesses them, but they do not own them. When I heard the DNR was considering selling the antlers, I almost fell over. My neighbors and I sent them e-mails letting them know how wrong it would be to sell the originals, and what an incredibly bad example they would be setting.

"How could they not see this themselves?"

Konrad cuts a wide swath among DNR higher-ups. But any decision regarding disposition of the antlers ultimately will be made at a pay grade higher than his, he said.

Or perhaps not made at all.

"Before anything can happen with those antlers other than using them to educate the public, the judge would have to vacate his order," Konrad said. "No one has asked him to do that yet."

Dennis Anderson • [email protected]

[Scott M]

I agree with the Goodhue County guys interviewed, if the DNR sell the antlers, they are just as bad as the poacher. Cabela's has bought poached antlers before (the youth hunt story where the dad killed the buck and pulled his kid out of school to tag it), there is a market for them and they need to do what they said they would and use them for education. Put them on the wall of shame where they belong.

[DTro]

I don't have a strong opinion either way, but for arguments sake, how is this different than selling confiscated guns, or trucks, or boats?

[Scott M]

I don't have a strong opinion either way, but for arguments sake, how is this different than selling confiscated guns, or trucks, or boats?

Confiscated equipment was never property of the state, just the convicted poacher. We can all agree that poached game is everyone's game, common property.

[Boar]

Wow this will be interestion to watch unfold.

[Scott M]

I understand what the DNR is saying, because with auctioned confiscated equipment, I believe the money goes into the general fund for the state. And the same for auctioned mineral rights? I have to look that up to be sure. So they could say the money from common property goes back to all citizens of the state. And the issue of practicality of holding onto dozens and dozens of antlers or mounted trophy animals comes into play. At some point it would be a waste of space. But I think in this case, selling these off is just as bad as if Mr. Reinke got away with poaching the deer and sold its head to a private collection.

[SkunkedAgain]

Well, if the DNR used the funds to fight poaching then I think that's the best outcome for dearly departed Fred. I'm with the commissioner on this, that a replica does the same thing on the wall but if the public could benefit from using $200k to fight poaching...great. Now, how well can the DNR actually use the $200k to fight poaching would be the real question.

[eyeguy 54]

Would not bother me one bit if they sold the rack and put the money into the deer heard somehow or another DNR program that helps wildlife. And I certainly don't think it would be the same as a poacher breaking the law and selling them. Confiscated stuff is sold every year. Make a repro if it has to be on the wall of shame.

[fowldreams]

Are any of the other racks on the wall of shame replicas? I don't believe so, so why start with this one. And if it is sold the problem will be with where does the money go. Way to many hands in the cookie jar and more than likely the funds won't be distributed the way it was intended. Just every day political games. We will have to wait and see

[nonteepical]

i voted no, but i agree, if they sell them have a replica made for the wall and give ALL the money to TIP not some money all the money.

[nofishfisherman]

Do you think adding one more rack to the wall of shame is really going to stop someone from poaching? I know when I've been at events with the wall of shame displayed I always go look but I'm just there to look at the cool racks, I'm not really thinking about the message they are trying to get across.

I think $200,000 can have a bigger impact on poaching and the health of the herd then having another rack on the wall of shame. I mean think of what could be done with $200,000. That could possibly pay for another CO to be in the field for a couple years, or it could pay for CO's to make trips into schools where they can teach kids the values and ethics of being outdoors. Now thats going to have a much larger impact on future poaching then hanging the rack at the Sportsman Show. Maybe even name the school program after Fred the deer. That way its a permanent reminder of the animal.

[Gordie]

Its a Yes/No sorta question or answer.

Yes: for the funding of programs for education from poaching or the realted to the deer herd and so on.

No: I voted No and after thinking about it cant really come up with a good reason not to sell them unless the money was use inappropriately.

Heres what I think they should do now if they sell them:

Give options to the hunters the sportsmen and let us decide thru a simalar vote as we did on this forum.

[mrklean]

If they do sell it would be nice if Rogers or Owatanna bought it keep it local since its a local deer, and if they sell it the money better go to the DNR for something that relates to the deer herd

[bobbymalone]

who in their right mind would pay 200K for a set of antlers?

[eyeguy 54]

who would pay 1 million for a baseball card?

[lichen fox]

I think they should sell all the wall of shame heads, antlers, etc...but they should take photo's and make a slide show or movie first...it would cost a lot less to travel around and set these up to "get the message" across than it does to fund taking that trailer, not to mention the extra man power everywhere! With photo's/movies they could have the same display at several venues simultainiously with one man running and setting it up vs 3 to 5 paid staff on hand..And I'm sure any money they saved they would use wisely like funding the TIP hotline, etc...When has any of our government agencies ever not spent our money to benefit the most?

[TruthWalleyes]

I could care less if it was sold or not. But i figured that 200k to the state would be better than some horns on a wall. I think it is funny how the article tries to make this deer into something special, with the whole "Fred" story blah blah blah. Whether it was a deer named "Fred" by the locals, or a nameless doe...a deer is a deer whether it was shot in season or out of. Shouldn't be any special exceptions because someone named this peticular animal. Sell it and put the money to good use...Maybe some wash stations.

[gixxer01]

Aren't wild animals property of the state anyway? I have a bigger problem with DNR selling what is actual personal property seized in an arrest. Sounds like another case of people thinking they own something they never could. I agree with others, better to see it pad the budget than waste away on a wall.

[CANOPY SAM]

I say sell em'. The DNR could then buy another 4 1/2 acres of swamp land for habitat restoration to improve the deer herd!

[Spike76]

There shouldn't be a wall of shame. Why give them credit for shooting deer illegally. Sell them all to the highest bidder and give the money to the local food shelf. Make the person who killed them match the amount to the food shelf before they can get another deer liscense.

[certified jumbo]

if the money is used smartly (youth education, youth hunts, land acquision, etc). i have no problem with the selling of the antlers. a replica on the wall of shame will be just fine, espescially if these antlers bring nearly a 1/4 million.

[flynfhs]

TruthWalleyes says "I think it is funny how the article tries to make this deer into something special, with the whole "Fred" story blah blah blah." Obviously, you, like most, have not seen the antlers in person yet, which is what the story is saying...the DNR isn't doing anything with them; by the way, it is massive, so yes, it would have a bigger impact on people's opinion about poaching than the other deer on the wall of shame. The whole argument here is the DNR is supposed to enforce the regulations (control poaching), and they can't do it with field officers alone...way to much land to patrol. It has to be done with education, and with the help of you and I. By selling them, it would be sending the message that the sale of antlers for profit is ok and would only promote poaching(if the DNR can make a buck off of poached antlers, why shouldn't I be able too)! Also, someone else compared selling the confiscated antlers from a poached deer to selling the confiscated gun that was used to poach a deer...one belonged to the state (us) and one belonged to the poacher. The other thing is that $200k is a lot of money to you and I, but it's a drop of water in a lake to the DNR. Here's one last thought...if they feel the need to be irresponsible, and set a bad example, then why not just sell replicas to Cabelas; donate that money to the TIP fund, and put the original mount (which they have already admitted belongs to all of us) somewhere that people can actually go see it? Just my thoughts!

[Archerysniper]

If they could guaranty that the money would be put into decoys and officer time too curb the poaching problem the state has I would be all for it.

[eyeguy 54]

can't agree with you flyn. sell em and use the money for something good. that would be setting a good example. if they are mine then that's what I would have them do. get a poster made and bring to the fairs..... lol I don't think the wall of shame is gonna stop poachers either.

[SrBrits]

Here's one last thought...if they feel the need to be irresponsible, and set a bad example,

wow, did that thought bring back some DNR memories,

for those of you that think the DNR will manage OUR resources properly, and do what is right for MN, think again, they do what is best for themselves, and any one that doesn't agree to this, lets go back to 2007 and the North American Wildlife Enforcement Officers Association Convention, in St Paul.

the DNR ignored the rules, broke the laws, and did what they wanted to do, right or wrong, and some of the guilty ones paid the price, if you call early retirement paying the price. some should have been fired.

here are two of the many stories found in the StarTrib, search and read if you think the DNR will work for us.

may 7, 2008, taxpayers paid for game warden meeting, records show.

sept, 27,2008, top DNR officer resigns after audit.

food for thought.