Zone 3 APR

[jkcmj]

Yes, you understand correctly. The legislative repeal of antler restrictions is over ruling the DNR, as many people felt the DNR have been bowing to pressure from the big money end of the hunting spectrum, and ignoring the majority of hunters who put less emphasis on the antlers, and more on time with the family and meat in the freezer. Those wishing to continue passing on small bucks, such as myself, are still welcome to do so, now they can no longer force their own agenda on the rest of the state's residents:)

[PEATMOSS]

After years of making several legislative end around attempts themselves, I'm guessing that it will be a matter of hours before Michael Sieve, the Bluffland boys or some other horn porn pusher starts squealing like a little girl about legislative meddling and lack of respect for our DNR

[nonteepical]

If i remember right it is the i should be able to kill anything i want crowd who are squeeling like little girls to change it back, and can't wait 3 years for the study to play out. Little girls have no foresight. it's not changed yet it just got out of commitee its has to be heard on the floor. MDHA found a loophole with CWD as an excuse to change it back to shoot every buck that walks by your stand, then call your neighbor to see if they know of anyone with an extra buck tag.

[PEATMOSS]

My comment was directed at the process only. I think we've beaten the APR/QDM horse into the ground.

Of course it has been awhile.....

[picksbigwagon]

The study should be played out for the three years since it was legislated so....let's remember to play nice here

[james_walleye]

There isn't a person on this forum that shouldn't be steaming that a lone representative can introduce a bill that can over ride the governing body being paid to handle these issues. Not only that but over rode what the majority of zone 3 hunters wanted. I hope he is ready for the kind of backlash he's going to get. Maybe he has forgotten what happened when Chaudary pulled this stunt.

[someday]

If any of you think you need more deer? Bring a cattle trailer to the CWD kill zone and I'm sure we can get the neighbors to help get you a load full. The genes are good for big horns so you can grow some big ones.

[PEATMOSS]

There isn't a person on this forum that shouldn't be steaming that a lone representative can introduce a bill that can over ride the governing body being paid to handle these issues. Not only that but over rode what the majority of zone 3 hunters wanted. I hope he is ready for the kind of backlash he's going to get. Maybe he has forgotten what happened when Chaudary pulled this stunt.

In a perfect world, I'd be inclined to agree with you. Of course, in a perfect world, state agencies, like the DNR would always do what is right and wouldn't be swayed or bullied by special interest groups. Don't think for a minute that EITHER side is above biting, scratching or pulling hair to get their way

[MJ1657]

Yes, you understand correctly. The legislative repeal of antler restrictions is over ruling the DNR, as many people felt the DNR have been bowing to pressure from the big money end of the hunting spectrum, and ignoring the majority of hunters who put less emphasis on the antlers, and more on time with the family and meat in the freezer. Those wishing to continue passing on small bucks, such as myself, are still welcome to do so, now they can no longer force their own agenda on the rest of the state's residents:)

Outstanding post.

[PEATMOSS]

so....let's remember to play nice here

I try, I really do. This particular issue just really gets me

[picksbigwagon]

and I understand it peatmoss, I really do. I don't think a private land philosophy (QDM) should be enforced on a public sector. The DNR decided to try it for 3 years on a part of tha state that contains areas that produce big deer. Does all of zone 3 have monster bucks, no, does all of Iowa have huge bucks? NO......

this is a hot button issue, as it was this fall when we went round and round on this topic. I have tried to see both sides of it and I admit my opinion has changed some. two more years and the DNR should be allowed to evaluate it. If it has some positives, I would love to see out of state licenses racked up to the costs that I incure when I head to Iowa and hunt with friends and family. (Doe only)

[lakevet]

One very important point often lost in this topic is that the PRIMARY reason the DNR presented as justification of APR's is that it would help increase the antlerless harvest in areas where APR is implemented. That is the MAJOR reason the DNR implemented it. Increasing the mature buck population is the SECONDARY reason, while it is the primary reason hunters will state they support it. One other option considered was earn a buck to force buck hunters to help manage the antlerless population. Since that high an antlerless harvest was not yet needed, they went with apr's, which is supposed to increase antlerless take modestly.

DNR 2010 regs book section explaining reason for APR's

p.76

"For the past 5 years, DNR biologists have been evaluating non-traditional regulations that are designed to primarily lower deer densities but also, perhaps increase the proportion of mature bucks in the population."

and p.77

"there should be a slight increase

in the number of antlerless deer taken because some hunters will choose to

harvest a doe (or fawn) instead."

I hope the DNR (if allowed to follow its plan of review after 3 years) has the integrity to repeal the reg if it does not meet its primary stated purpose.....getting hunters to do their part in reducing the deer population down to goal populations. If this reg doesn't achieve its primary purpose, it should be repealed. Those that want to maintain the reg should shoot does. With 40% of us refusing to shoot antlerless, the DNR may have to impose more regs to "encourage " the buck onlys" to shoot hornless deer. When APR's were introduced in Pennsylvania it was primarily to reduce a totally out of control deer population, not grow big bucks. That was a carrot to sell the idea.

Again the main justification for APR regs is population control, and horns are secondary!

From reading the posts here, it sounds like a repeal has been introduced in the legislature. With the fact that most hunters think the reg is only about horns, it shows how much misinformation and misunderstanding is out there. Once in place, the population control justification could be easily forgotten and thus APR's stay in place. Mature buck agenda met but with a way isn't as clean as it could be.

I believe that when people make the effort to research and use facts first then form their opinions, consensus is built and conflict is lessened. While I personally am against apr's and against ban on buck cross tagging (mainly because the undisputed fact that Wisc & Iowa produce the desired big buck hunting without these regs), I am for the DNR being allowed to follow it's plan to run regs 3 years then review BOTH of them.

Maybe this will be enough of a train wreck, that everyone will be more open to the solution of RESTORING the main gun harvest to match what Wisc and Iowa do, and what Minnesota used to do. The season was moved over the rut in 1972 to help increase buck success when the DNR went from any deer legal to the buck only/antlerless permit system. The DNR was worried that hunter success would be too low to retain hunters if they had to hunt bucks after the main rut. The system worked to increase the deer population, but also trained several generations of deer hunters to expect the easy parade of bucks (esp young bucks) that happens during the rut.

Anyone have a link about the status of the repeal mentioned in some of the above posts?

Thanks!

lakevet

[james_walleye]

Peat, blufflands might have brought the issue to the forefront. But they were NOT responsible for getting APRs place. What seems to get lost Everytime this issue comes up is that the reason the dnr finally did go forward with APRs is that the majority if zone 3 hunters were for some sort of protection for young bucks. You can continue to not believe that, but it's not a secret, all the numbers are public knowledge. So let's quit pretending that that some small vocal minority got this done, because those aren't the facts.

The real issue at hand is this is s horrible precedent to be setting. What is the next? Will some senator change walleye limits to 10? Or how about 1?. How about getting rid if closed seasons for fishing? Change it to where we can all shoot 3 bucks per year? This has to stop. Chaudary pulled this stunt last year and heard about it. Now Draskowski needs to hear it. How bout these clowns find a way to balance our budget instead of overriding an agency that is already in place to make these decisions.

[BLACKJACK]

How bout these clowns find a way to balance our budget instead of overriding an agency that is already in place to make these decisions.

Agreed!!!! Let the DNR, with their team of biologists, make the decisons!!!! Not some legislative joker who's cousin didn't like APR's!!

I have to admit, I'm not a fan of APR's, but now that the study is in place, lets give it two more years to see how it works.

[hockeybc69]

Right on Blackjack!

[B. Amish]

since when was this ever a 'study'?

[Deep]

One very important point often lost in this topic is that the PRIMARY reason the DNR presented as justification of APR's is that it would help increase the antlerless harvest in areas where APR is implemented..

Can you show me where the antlerlees harvest went up after this last fall deer hunting season in the APR zone? I read in a paper the Lou was suprised to see the antlerless harvest went down.

I would like to see the reports that the QDMA and the round table have been shown.

[Deep]

Let deer hunting be deer hunting. Their is plenty of big bucks out there( look in the ODN).

If they were so concerned about anterless harvest it either should have been no cross tagging a buck or (GASP) earn a buck.

Lou said in the ODN that some places may always intensive harvest. What is that saying?

[PEATMOSS]

Peat, blufflands might have brought the issue to the forefront. But they were NOT responsible for getting APRs place. What seems to get lost Everytime this issue comes up is that the reason the dnr finally did go forward with APRs is that the majority if zone 3 hunters were for some sort of protection for young bucks. You can continue to not believe that, but it's not a secret, all the numbers are public knowledge. So let's quit pretending that that some small vocal minority got this done, because those aren't the facts.

One can quote surveys or turnout at roundtables or anything else you want, but IF there was truly any kind of majority that had any real level of commitment, would we need a law? Quote any stats you like, but the truth lies in peoples actions.

[creepworm]

Blackjack is right on. Could not be more correct.

[hockeybc69]

Since we are in the midst of the APR study here in MN, here is some info from Missouri, where they have been through all this already.

Here is an excerpt from the Missouri DNR's study regarding APR.

Study Conclusions

Although we did not achieve all of our biological objectives, the APR increased the harvest of adult bucks, increased doe harvest in central APR counties and was generally popular and well supported where implemented. In other words, we consider the APR a helpful management tool.

For 2008 the Antler Point Restriction will be expanded to include 65 counties, mostly in northern and central Missouri. Some counties in southwestern Missouri were excluded because of concerns about deer population declines that have occurred there over the last few years, even though there was public support for the APR. We also excluded urban counties in the St. Louis and Kansas City areas because of the need to harvest as many deer as possible—bucks and does—to reduce conflicts with human activities.

Deer populations in southeastern Missouri are low. We do not need to increase doe harvests there, and a restriction that prohibits hunters from taking a yearling buck would significantly reduce harvest opportunities for some hunters.

We will annually review the results of the APR and may add or remove counties depending on biological issues and public interest. Missouri deer hunters can expect that we will continue to strive to manage deer populations in a way that ensures a healthy deer herd in line with the desires of hunters, landowners and the general public.

Here is a link to the report the above conclusion was pulled from.

http://mdc.mo.gov/conmag/2008/09/experimental-antler-point-restriction?page=0,0

[PEATMOSS]

The real issue at hand is this is s horrible precedent to be setting. What is the next? Will some senator change walleye limits to 10? Or how about 1?. How about getting rid if closed seasons for fishing? Change it to where we can all shoot 3 bucks per year? This has to stop. Chaudary pulled this stunt last year and heard about it. Now Draskowski needs to hear it. How bout these clowns find a way to balance our budget instead of overriding an agency that is already in place to make these decisions.

Sadly, politics plays a huge role in the decisions made by our DNR. DNR employees face pressure from special interest groups, legislators that hold their purse strings, the Governors' office etc. The decisions these people make are not made in an apolitical vacuum.

[james_walleye]

The drop in buck harvest last year shows it had an impact......

[Deep]

The drop in buck harvest last year shows it had an impact......

That was not the primary reason for the APR. It was to increase the antlerless harvest. From what I am hearing, a more balanced healthier heard.Now we have more buck and does in a area that they are trying to reduce numbers, sound like we are going the wrong way.

[PEATMOSS]

The drop in buck harvest last year shows it had an impact......

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that pretty much proves my point. Were there actually any appreciable number of folks committed to this idea prior to it being forced upon them, then there wouldn't have been any drastic drop in buck harvest.

[james_walleye]

Ur right, a bunch of people who were against APRs lied on their surveys LOL. If u wanna fly with the info the dnr gathered as being wrong, go for it. Nothing much I can do about that.

[PEATMOSS]

Ur right, a bunch of people who were against APRs lied on their surveys LOL. If u wanna fly with the info the dnr gathered as being wrong, go for it. Nothing much I can do about that.

Folks can say whatever they want on a survey. Actions speak louder than words. IF there was really as much committed support for APR's as some seem to want us to believe, then criminalizing the shooting of bucks that don't meet other peoples' standards would never have been necessary.

No one is forced to shoot any deer they don't want to. A truly committed majority of hunters could make a huge impact purely with voluntary action. The fact that this has never happened leads me to believe that this "majority" doesn't exist.

[james_walleye]

You can gi ahead and continue going with your "hunches" and keep talking yourself into believing that the mindset in se mn isn't real. I'll go with the facts set in front of me. When you have the pressure and number of hunters that we have down here and 45% of the people that will shoot the first antler they see, that equals a couple thousand bucks a year saved, as evidenced by the drop in buck harvest last year.

[helpme]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I thought the survey was quite leading or one sided! They ask if you would like to see larger bucks (who doesn't), then they ask what regulation you would like to see to accomplish this? Where was the question do you want APR's? Do you like the season the way it is?

And yes the reason for the APR's was to control the doe population with the secondary being antler growth. The problem is, the antler harvest did not go up the 20-35% predicted, which in my mind is a failure. You can offer as many antlerless tags you want, but once the hunter/party reaches the number of deer he needs, he stops hunting.

[Musky Buck]

Let's just go back to slaughterhouse. Fill tags man. Cmon I see deer I shoot the biggest one and find the first to leave deer camp to tag it so I can "save" my tag. Then I blast that small buck so the neighbor don't get it and heck we cut up our own so pile it up so I can "save" my buck tag for later or muzzleloader to hunt for a big one now that my itch to shoot is gone. Count points heck we're blasting the biggest one at first light or last light man, I paid for my ticket to deer hunt so I'm blazing. No wonder my dad hasn't taken a nice buck or any deer in 21 years. Blast away.