Who should make the rules?

[BLACKJACK]

I'm a big believer in limited government. That is, its government job to make and enforce the limited amount of rules possible so everyone can enjoy the pursuit of "life, liberty and happiness." That's because when government sticks its nose into matters anything beyond that, it pretty much screws it up 100 percent of the time.

In the case of the DNR, I think they're pretty much doing what they should be doing right now. Give us a chance to get a deer, any deer, so we have the opportunity to deer hunt, period, and let us handle the rest. You want a big buck, make that happen yourself. Don't rely on the DNR to drop one onto your lap with strategies that may or may not work. And even if they do work, will not gaurentee you that big one. I was watching Jim Shockey the other night and he mentioned how it took him more than a month of sitting there every day in a blind, camera running, to get a buck he wanted in one area of Canada known for big bucks.

While I feel government's role should be limited, I also don't think you should just leave it up to the people to take a vote on issues like this. Our country is structured as a republic with representatives of the people so mob rule won't ever overtake common sense. It's our representatives job to represent us, but also to study the issues, debate them and act in our best interests, despite popular opinion. Now, that wouldn't help me in this case, because it means a vocal minority could influence the enactment of antler point restrictions, etc. And that's why those against such overreaching laws need to be vocal as well.

But the gate swings the other way. Take the recent crackdown on the all-season license and one deer period bag limit in the numerous lottery areas throughout the state. Ask hunters in those areas if they'd like to kill three deer again and I would wager a majority would say yes immediately with no other reason behind their decision than they want to kill more deer. Does that make sense? Is it based on sound reason? No, not at all. And that's why we have represtatives versus letting the people take a direct vote.

Good post deerminator. I catch he!! here for being the vocal voice against QDM, to the point where I don't bother to post anymore when the QDM guys rant, nice to read a reasonable, well written post.

[Wanderer]

No party hunting for bucks, I agree, but how will that be enforced?

Is part of the reason Iowa has the number of bucks it has because there is no open firearm season during the rut? Minnesota has a lot of "tradtions" and they like to stick to those tradtions no matter what. Moving the firearm season to later in the year would/could help. But the uproar from something like that would be unbelievable. Population denstiy (human) also plays a big part as well.

If you drive north of the cities, most of the available farm land is what I call rock farms, they might have fields of crops, but they are better suited to growing rocks. In Iowa, there aren't a lot of rock farms. There are parts of NE IA, where I am from, where deer never see a human until they are shot. They have a lot of corn and beans to eat as well. Good luck trying to hunt the bluffs and ridges in Allamakee county.

This is where I'm at. Habit factored with pressure affects things the most.

I've stated I've crossed tagged bucks before but would stop without complaint if the law changed.

And one last thought: A later season would likely keep your total hunter hours down, including kids'.

[Pickelfarmer]

Pickelfarmer, I am not a closet out of stater, nor am I coming out of the closet, I'm not even anywhere near a closet. However, I do love to deer hunt out of state because I have so much more fun! I apologize for enjoying hunting so much that I try to do as much of it as I can. I'm so sorry that I can go to Kansas or Iowa and see 25 or more bucks in a week of hunting, where I don't have to fear for my life while I hunt the peak of the rut with my bow. Will you ever forgive me for passing up little bucks in MN and elsewhere, because I feel that I've shot enough of them and choose to wait for a big one?

The question I'm asking is what I already asked: Who should make the rules?

The majority or the minority?

Should a guy who deer hunts 2 or 3 days a year have as much say in the regulations as a guy who hunts 30?

Who spends more money and buys more tags?

Would the 1 weekend a year guy quit if he had to hunt November 25th instead of November 8th?

Would he quit if he couldn't tag a buck for his wife?

Should we care if he quits?

Make the hunting what it could be and raise the cost of nonresident tags to make up the difference, that's what every state with good hunting does.

Right now the DNR pretends to listen to the hunters and then does what's best for their pocketbook. Then they back it up by saying they surveyed us and this is what we want. Nobody from the DNR has ever asked me what I want.

No need to apoligize Dave.. You do your thing, thats cool. I really don't think that because somebody hunts more days during the season that there entitled to more of a say in the rules. I mean, I pay just as much for my deer liences as you, don't I? Or is there some cheaper 3 day deer licence that I'm missing out on? It really doesn't matter how often I use it I pay the same. And just so you know I got a wife that has never hunted a day in her life nor has she ever tagged a deer that I or any one else has shot.

Last but not least, Who in your opinion Dave is the Minority in deer hunting in MN and who In your opinion is the Majority? I think guys like me that hunt because they enjoy the outdoors as well as a chance to put some food on the table are the majority. I could be wrong but if I'm not then I think that the MN regs are just fine. Of course I think there could be a few less bonus tags sold every year, and if your doing as you say you are passing up all these deer for the big one,than I think I spend alot more money in tags than you do.I don't pass up on much of anything.I buy alot of tags. So do I get to make the rules?

[mondo]

Reading all these posts is quite interesting, But in the big picture of things we have it pretty good here in minn. If I'm interested in multiple deer I can find state land in a management area, chase big bucks- I can make friends with land owners/ find state property, or chase the AMERICAN DREAM and control my circumstances and purchase my own hunting grounds. I'm not saying all you don't have good reasoning in your thinking, I just thank GOD I still have guns, hunt/fish, etc... and pray that my kids/grand kids will have that same right. I just hope all are as passionate at your local meetings as you are here because we need this.

[WaitForIt]

I love the plethora of posts such as this one - clearly the management philosophy is starting to change here in Minnesota for the better. Never since I started hunting have I heard so much buzz for making some changes to our antiquated hunting regulations.

The problem with the idea of a democracy vs. a meritocracy is that the majority does not necessarily choose the best choice. The decisionmakers should not the the weekend warriors OR the trophy fanatics - it should be wildlife biologists and the sort of folk that are experienced in the management scenarios we are discussing. Populism is never a good way to make a decision.

There is little doubt that hunting is more exciting and productive in neighboring states.. one only needs to think for a few minutes about some of the reasons that might be.

Change is a-comin.