DNR seeks input on antler point restrictions

[lichen fox]

DNR seeks input on southeastern Minnesota antler point restrictions

(Released February 25, 2013)

The public can help the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) determine whether to recommend a continuation of antler point restrictions in southeastern Minnesota.

Interested individuals can view an online presentation on the restrictions and complete an online survey at www.mndnr.gov/wildlife/input/sedeer.

The DNR will analyze information gathered from mailed hunter surveys, public meetings this week in Cannon Falls and Winona and online survey responses to develop a 2013 season structure to recommend to the Minnesota Legislature. Under 2011 legislation, antler point restrictions in southeastern Minnesota require legislative approval.

Meetings are scheduled from 7-9 p.m. on the following dates:

■Monday, Feb. 25, Cannon Falls High School auditorium, 820 East Minnesota St.

■Wednesday, Feb. 27, Tandeski Center, Winona Southeast Technical College,

1250 Homer Road.

Special regulations enacted in 2010 created the restrictions, which received extensive biological review and examination of social implications prior to enactment. Those regulations included:

■ A nine-day firearms deer season for both the 3A (early) and 3B (late) hunts.

■An antler restriction of four points on one side for all hunters older than 17 during the archery, firearms and muzzleloader seasons.

■Prohibiting hunters from tagging an antlered buck for another hunter.

■Establishing a youth-only season in October during an extended mid-month break for most public school children.

During the past two months, 4,000 surveys were sent to randomly-selected hunters who participated in the 3A and 3B seasons. Results from that survey indicate public support for continuing the antler point restriction regulations that were enacted in 2010.

Survey results are preliminary because another survey recently was sent out to hunters who had not responded to either of the first two mailings. Final results, which will be available this spring, are not expected to change much.

[mrklean]

This should be interesting

[PropsterII]

Attended the input meeting tonight. Looks like there is plenty of public support for the DNR to recommend to the legislature that APR restrictions be continued, though it is only one of the factors they will consider in making their recommendation. That's the thing that bothers me most is leaving it to the politicians to make these type of decisions vs leaving it to the folks who are trained and hired to manage our deer.

[Jameson]

Here is something I don't get. Many people think the legislature shouldn't have a say in the deer regs. That the DNR and their trained scientists should make the rules. Then those same folks put a bunch of meaning behind a public survey. It should also mean nothing, the same as the legislature's view.

[muskiemanAD]

It drives me nuts that the final decision comes down to the legislators, many of whom have never hunted or been off a paved road in their life.... They might as well eliminate the DNR if they are not letting the trained people make the final decision....

[B. Amish]

Here is something I don't get. Many people think the legislature shouldn't have a say in the deer regs. That the DNR and their trained scientists should make the rules. Then those same folks put a bunch of meaning behind a public survey. It should also mean nothing, the same as the legislature's view.

+4,001

[mntatonka]

It drives me nuts that the final decision comes down to the legislators, many of whom have never hunted or been off a paved road in their life.... They might as well eliminate the DNR if they are not letting the trained people make the final decision....

Of course, the same could be said about the guys in the dnr making these rules. They aren't listening to their own trained employees who can't manage their areas with these regulations

[lichen fox]

"Final results, which will be available this spring, are not expected to change much."

So, this is the line that got me....they are "telling us" that the decision has already been made and it doesn't really matter what additional public input they get...they only "ask" for public input because it is now mandated by law...but, at the end of the day, they'll do what ever they like....

[PurpleFloyd]

Just as long as they keep that lunacy over in the SE corner it's OK. Just don't try to push it over into the rest of the state.

[mntatonka]

Just as long as they keep that lunacy over in the SE corner it's OK. Just don't try to push it over into the rest of the state.

Well it is your legislators that control that decision, so tell them to get rid of it before it spreads!

[jdog]

why does everyone think the restriction is a bad thing im hoping it does become a statewide restriction im seeing a huge difference in the SE zone

[AntlerHandler]

For those of you in the SE zone, what are your own opinions of the success or lackthereof of APR's? I'm from Bemidji, MN and cant'decide what side I'm on... On one hand I would love to manage the state's deer herd for trophy animals because that is what I'm pursueing when I'm deer hunting but on the other hand, I grew up shooting yearling bucks in the big woods country of northern MN and I wouldn't trade those golden memories at deer camp for anything. I feel like those young years shooting small bucks made me the hunter I am today... Some speculation says that APR's actually don't work because all the yearling bucks with superior genetics (a four point side vs a spike buck) get shot while the yearlings with inferior genetics (spikes) are allowed to live, thus recruiting bucks into your deer herd with inferior rack genetics...I've also seen proof that the size of a yearlings rack doesn't necessarily reflect his genetic potential which contradicts the previous mindset.. Thoughts?

[mntatonka]

For those of you in the SE zone, what are your own opinions of the success or lackthereof of APR's? I'm from Bemidji, MN and cant'decide what side I'm on... On one hand I would love to manage the state's deer herd for trophy animals because that is what I'm pursueing when I'm deer hunting but on the other hand, I grew up shooting yearling bucks in the big woods country of northern MN and I wouldn't trade those golden memories at deer camp for anything. I feel like those young years shooting small bucks made me the hunter I am today... Some speculation says that APR's actually don't work because all the yearling bucks with superior genetics (a four point side vs a spike buck) get shot while the yearlings with inferior genetics (spikes) are allowed to live, thus recruiting bucks into your deer herd with inferior rack genetics...I've also seen proof that the size of a yearlings rack doesn't necessarily reflect his genetic potential which contradicts the previous mindset.. Thoughts?

Why are we trying to manage for someone's opinion of a trophy? Who has the right to tell me what should be considered a trophy?

I'm not a fan of a regulation that tells me what I should think is a quality deer. However, I am a big fan of educational information on what a quality deer is from a biological standpoint.

It's pretty bad when an area professor who is wildlife biologist stands up and is completely against a regulation that the DNR says is biologically sound.

[Jameson]

...Some speculation says that APR's actually don't work because all the yearling bucks with superior genetics (a four point side vs a spike buck) get shot while the yearlings with inferior genetics (spikes) are allowed to live, thus recruiting bucks into your deer herd with inferior rack genetics...I've also seen proof that the size of a yearlings rack doesn't necessarily reflect his genetic potential which contradicts the previous mindset.. Thoughts?

While I wouldn't say that APR's don't work because of the genetics thing, I do think that eventually APR's would be a bad thing due to the genetics thing. Sure, the yearling rack doesn't necessarily reflect the genetics, but it does in some occasions. Keep shooting the better genetic deer at a lower age than the poor genetic deer for many years and eventually the better genetics are fewer. The first many years we would not be able to tell and it would look like APR's are doing a wonderful job.

Another way to look at is we have deer from group 'A' that have good genetics, and deer from group 'B' have bad genetics. If both AB deer are born late and have poor nutrition they both will be protected at 1.5 years old. If both AB are born early and have great nutrition then only the B group is protected. Eventually the B's would start representing more of the population.

And what about the does genetics? Deer farmers will tell us that they have a significant effect on their fawn's antlers, but those same deer farmers will tell you that the buck does matter. So if 80% of genetics come from the doe, instead of 40%, it means that the degrade in genetics will simply take longer to see, not that it will not happen.

Also, why isn't the no-buck cross tagging ever added into the APR's in zone 3 discussion? They both started at the same time.

[CC Hurl]

I do hunt in the SE along with central MN. More bigger bucks in that area as we all know. There always has been. As far as the APR showing the difference I would have to say yes. More bigger deer on camera's and seen them myself while hunting. I only Bow hunt so I get to see many out there.

Now with that being said, I feel the SE has never had an issue with producing a trophy buck even before APR. With not much public land to hunt down there of course the hunting presure is much lower than in other areas of the state.

Do I support APR? I would have to say yes. They have special regs for the youth hunter in that area so they can still take a smaller animal if they choose.

When there are more bigger bucks and competition for them the hunt's can become very intresting. That is what I look forward to. Using my tools in the bag to trick them. Competition should only add to the excitment. Thats my for what it's worth. Lol

[hoppe56307]

They have special regs for the youth hunter in that area so they can still take a smaller animal if they choose.

This is how you control the smaller bucks that are "genetically inferior", you introduce a kid to hunting and you have them shoot the smaller bucks with the condition that once they get older they can shoot bigger deer.

I would also like to see this added for those over 65 since there are some who could possibly fail to correctly judge a deer.

[Musky Buck]

Have only 1 set of guys from SE MN that shared with me they like the idea, the chance, the possibility of taking a larger more mature buck. They said the length of the now gun seasons and our tagging system can really throw places out of whack if nearly everything with horns is gunned down. They now hold off on those testy 2.5 year old 8 pointers because the chance exists that 1 of them may get that large buck they now know exists. They also like the idea those yearlings get seasoned a little so by 2.5 they've survived a gun season with antlers on their head not that they don't as a fawn. You wouldn't believe how optimistic these guys are now for deer season, they still aren't like a piece of cake to get, but they are tangible and on the ground, they're really there and not in their dreams.

[Rippinlip]

I still can't figure out which side I agree with more.

This is one thing I am on the fence about and not really leaning either way.

[flyfisher03]

I think in the short run 3-5 years it is an OK idea. Let the smaller bucks get bigger before getting shot but at the same time the genetics in the population may favor smaller racks. However, personally I'd rather shoot a doe or a small buck because I would want actual meat (steaks, roasts, ect.) for the table and not a whole bunch of jerky or sticks.

[Spike76]

If you need restrictions on some to get a bigger deer, maybe you should hunt harder. Restrictions should be voluntary. If you need help getting bigger fish and deer, maybe you aren't supposed to get bigger ones. Check out the deer and fish pictures on HSO, now tell me there should be restrictions on getting larger deer and fish. Work harder and it will be more rewarding when you are successful on your own, and not with restrictions limiting others.

[slimngrizzly]

If you need restrictions on some to get a bigger deer, maybe you should hunt harder. Restrictions should be voluntary. If you need help getting bigger fish and deer, maybe you aren't supposed to get bigger ones. Check out the deer and fish pictures on HSO, now tell me there should be restrictions on getting larger deer and fish. Work harder and it will be more rewarding when you are successful on your own, and not with restrictions limiting others.

I believe its about producing OLDER deer... "bigger" isn't a good word since you and I may have a very different opinion on what "big" is. In much of MN, the agricultural parts anyway, bucks of age 4 1/2 or older literally DO NOT exist. I agree hard work is what it takes, but if im willing to give it that, id like to know that "those deer" are out there. The way things are now, I know that there aren't but one per many sqare miles. I guess im talking farmland MN. The SE is improving IMO, however the SE already has what deer need to age, good habitat.

If the HSO Deer Photos are a good representation of what MN offers, id say there are very few "big" deer. Mostly its a bunch of "nice" young deer with good antlers.

Is Point Restrictions the answer? I dont think so it. But to me, its a step in the right direction in an attemp to increase the age in Minnesotas bucks.

[jlm]

I am in full support and hope they bring the same regulations to my area as well. At this point the majority in the APR area are in favor keeping the regulation permanent. Looks like the buck harvest is increasing each year as well. APR's seem to work as far as moving the age structure. This is great news!

[CC Hurl]

Well said Slimmgrizzly, I couldn't agree more. Spike76, Bow hunting for many years now and everyone I've shot has been through hard work. Some are more rewarding than others but they all put meat on the table.

I hope to find some nice sheds out there in the next week or two and there for I again support APR.

I would also add my support for the over 65 comment. The fact the kids can still take what they want makes it a nice feature to the deal. I would support that state-wide for a good five years. From what I understand most farmers in the area like APR as it takes out more does thus saving crop. OK, so I had another to offer. Lol

[monstermoose78]

I think people should have the option on what they want to shoot for a deer. I don't want to have the government tell me what deer is ok to shoot. I know that in my hunting party I have got them to let the little bucks walk, because if you pop a little one your buck tag is gone. No party hunting bucks in our party any more. I also hunt in the arrowhead and we don't see many deer. I have a friend who hunts in the southeast minnesota and he is now going to be coming up and hunting with us in the arrowhead. Not so he can shoot a little buck but he wants to see quality deer over quanity. If I see 5 deer in 9 days that is a lot of deer up there.

For archery any deer is a trophy to me. I still don't shoot little ones, but that is my choice to do so.

[rogrod]

I do hunt in the SE part of the state and have for over 30 years. What the apr rules do is slow down the shooting. If you are doing a drive and a deer starts running, you have to look for antlers or not. That makes for less deer of any kind getting shot. Down there virtually every buck over 1.5 years has enough points to be legal. Every big buck that was shot last year has been legal its whole life and it still made it to become a monster.