Zone 3 APR

[picksbigwagon]

Now Musky Buck, I hunted one time with a guy with that mentality, he was never asked to come back to Houston to hunt with us. a slob is a slob, if you hunt with a slob, you're a slob, talk to him, educate him.

If the APR's were put in to help reduce the deer numbers, why did we have 8 or more years of management and intensive harvest zone is zone 3? If the hunters didn't shoot doe's then, why would they start now? I can speak of zones 346 and 349 where there is a lot of deer. I remember when I started maybe 12 years ago when it was an apply for a doe tag, otherwise shoot bucks and suddenly the numbers got out of whack. How is not shooting bucks going to help with that 40% of hunters who won't shoot a deer. (MN Conservationist article last month or the month before)

[james_walleye]

Hoe can you call it a failure when the real effects of this all was to be seen was in the next 2 seasons??? Which we may not get to see because s representative is overriding the whole process?!

[helpme]

Hoe can you call it a failure when the real effects of this all was to be seen was in the next 2 seasons??? Which we may not get to see because s representative is overriding the whole process?!

I would like to know what you mean by "real effects". The primary reason for the APR's was to control the deer population by shifting the hunting pressure to the doe's. Secondary effect of the APR's just happens to be an older class of buck's! Since the regulation did not reduce the doe population, this in itself can be considered a failure in deer management strategy. The doe harvest has not changed more than 108 deer within the last 3 years in zone 3-updated numbers by the DNR within the last week if you are wondering. And in my opinion, these regulations are a social decision and not a biological decision.

[jkcmj]

We have so few does around our land, that we havn't shot any the last two years and still no recovery of population. I would like to harvest a young buck to keep meet in the freezer, but cannot due to some clown in the DNR deciding we need to count points. I was more than willing this season to throw my buck tag away on a young buck. I had my cameras out for over 2 months last season, same 4 does, and 16 different bucks on camera.

Thank God we have Draz in to right the ship this time around...hopefully we always have someone solid in to support hunters and gun owners rights.

[bottom-bouncer]

why is it that half the people on this forum that are so against the apr dont even live in this part of the state? also I can tell by the people who have the brown its down mentality and claim that the apr is a failure because the number of does killed was down let me remind you last year the weather was not really condusive to time spent in the field surely you are aware of this because you are the same people that want the easy deer. [Note from admin: Your post has been edited. Please read forum policy before posting again. Thank you.]

also note that bluffland whitetails was NOT in favor of the apr it WAS in favor of moving the seasons. attend a meeting or two get your facts straight and then form an opionion. When you just ramble aimlessly you dont help your cause any you just show your mentality. And if you have very few does on your property I would like to buy that piece of land from you because its the such parcell in S.E minn and then maybe I wouldnt have to listen to the wife complain that the deer are eating all of her flowers and the schrubs. If you dont want to sell then maybe you could do some habitat improvement to your land to make it more desirable for deer to live .

[someday]

If your looking for a place with no does?There are several properties South of me with for sale signs. I don't there are any deer there anymore. Up until a month ago you couldn't drive by there and not have to slow up or at least see a group of deer on the hillside. Its a nice wooded area about half a mile Northeast of the former elk farm

[nonteepical]

4 does and 16 bucks.

And all boone and crockett?

[PostFrontal]

Area 51, JFK Assassination, MN DNR APR, yep all good conspiracies...Sounds like Jesse has material for another show...

[hockeybc69]

Well I dont feel like reading 5 pages of this topic, so sorry if this has been posted.

How many of you are aware of the omnibus bill going through our states office right now?

I didnt post the entire thing below, but I did add the section regarding APR in zone 3.

Omnibus game and fish bill gets committee approval

published 4/5/2011

The omnibus game and fish bill contains more than 60 proposed new or amended provisions to the state’s fishing and hunting laws, some of which are hot button issues.

New hunting provisions would include prohibiting the DNR from adopting antler point restrictions on deer harvested in the southeastern part of the state, known as the Series 300 area. Several people spoke against the provision, saying it circumvents years of stakeholder input. Others said it makes poachers out of hunters who accidentally shoot deer and encourages hunters to leave them in the woods to avoid violations.

[Getanet]

Here's the stupid thing, and I realize it happens all the time when it comes to politics, but there are 60 proposed new or amended provisions in the bill.

The more controversial ones - at least from the disagreements I've read here on HSO - include fishing with 2 lines, repeal of APR, and spearing on Cass Lake.

How can anyone vote on a bill like that? If, for example, you feel strongly that 2-lines should be allowed but not APR, how do you vote? These are some pretty important issues to be lumped together into one Yes or No vote.

[DHost21]

Here's the stupid thing, and I realize it happens all the time when it comes to politics, but there are 60 proposed new or amended provisions in the bill.

The more controversial ones - at least from the disagreements I've read here on HSO - include fishing with 2 lines, repeal of APR, and spearing on Cass Lake.

How can anyone vote on a bill like that? If, for example, you feel strongly that 2-lines should be allowed but not APR, how do you vote? These are some pretty important issues to be lumped together into one Yes or No vote.

I agree how can there be all these different laws on one bill! What if you agree with some and disagree with others? How do you vote? I think its a big joke. And when it comes to the APR's atleast let the thing go through its 3 year cycle and then decide whether or not its good. Hunters are suppose to be patient people but they dont have enough patients to see this through? Give me a break

[james_walleye]

Did the dnr ever say you would see any results in the first year?? Most states that did this got 5 years to see the full results. We got sorted by originally only given 3. Now it may be over before it started. So ya again I ask, how can you already call APRs a faulure??? This includes every measure of what APRs hoped to accomplish.

[helpme]

Did the dnr ever say you would see any results in the first year?? Most states that did this got 5 years to see the full results. We got sorted by originally only given 3. Now it may be over before it started. So ya again I ask, how can you already call APRs a faulure??? This includes every measure of what APRs hoped to accomplish.

This will take you to the information posted below. Page 7 will show you the expectations.

MN DNR DATA

In year 1, some of the declines in buck harvest would be offset by increases in antlerless harvest. Our estimated (based on our data and Missouri) is that antlerless harvest would increase approximately 15% from the antlerless harvest that would have occurred without APRs.

[james_walleye]

Like I said this was suppose to be a 3 year trial period with multiple facets to it. What if years 2 and 3 went to plan? You can't call it a failure because year 1 of 3 didn't go as planned. We were suppose to see 3 years trial and go from there. If it didn't work at all, it goes away. But we aren't going to get to see th whole 3 year process. Do you by chance hunt in zone 3 help?

[DHost21]

I agree 100 percent with you james walleye! Its so ridiculous how people cant give it a chance! Im for it so a little biased but still if it had negative effects after the full 3 years i would rethink my stance but right now give it a chance it has worked in other areas so let it play out. I hunt all public land and personally i see way too many people taking small bucks especially in the metro and you can take as many does as you want there so take a doe and pass up on the bucks they are trying to cut numbers down in that area it frustrates me so bad. Take does if you want meat people and let the young bucks walk! It would help the population and let the deer grow to maturity! Win win in my eyes

[jkcmj]

4 does and 16 bucks.

And all boone and crockett?

No boonies, but enough bucks that I could have harvested a young one for freezer meat, and still had plenty of mature bucks in the area. Point is, we don't need antler restrictions handed down by the DNR. What we need is for each to be able to manage their own properties as they see fit. Those managing for big bucks are having plenty of success without treading on the rights of the rest of us.

[james_walleye]

How many people in the grand scheme of things are fortunate enough to own land in se mn? Not only that, but a parcel big enough to manage. You aren't managing 160 acres. You might be passing bucks up on that much land but they aren't going to always stay there. I have 120 acres that my uncles own, and I let bucks go, but they end up hanging in the neighbors trees. I see that firsthand every season.

[heat checker]

I can see both sides of this argument. But it just amazes me how defensive the "brown its down" crowd gets on this subject. It's as if they aren't told pheasant hunting, duck hunting,and fishing what they can harvest. It's nothing new to be told what you can harvest. With that many deer, it's not like it affects the chances of taking a deer. Let the 3 yr trial happen, see what happens, and IF it turns out to be a permanent thing, my advice is grow up and get over it. No, I don't live or hunt there, but I would love to have that kind of a deer population where I live. Maybe there should be more blessings counted, less arguing, and just let the DNR do their job?

[Deep]

How many people in the grand scheme of things are fortunate enough to own land in se mn? Not only that, but a parcel big enough to manage. You aren't managing 160 acres. You might be passing bucks up on that much land but they aren't going to always stay there. I have 120 acres that my uncles own, and I let bucks go, but they end up hanging in the neighbors trees. I see that firsthand every season.

So you have 120 acres that your Uncle owns? Just because you let a buck pass by, why is that a bad thing that the neighbor harvested that deer? That may have been the buck She or He wanted to harvest. Why are you judging them?

[DHost21]

Last two posts by heat checker and james walleye are spot on!

[james_walleye]

I'm not judging anyone. Did you read above to see the context to which I wrote that post? Just pointing out that unless you have hundreds of acres and neighbors with large tracts of land practicing the same thing, you can't manage a "deer herd". And out of 50,000 zone 3 hunters there aren't many people in that position.

[jkcmj]

What I get a kick out of is the attitude of those who want to manage everyone elses land for their own personal benefit.

Most people enjoy shooting and seeing big bucks, but not at the expense of being able to enjoy the hunting experience.

The whole thing is rediculous. Even suggesting that you should have the right to tell your neighbor what size antlers he must have on his venison burgers! If he feeds them on his land, I think he has every right to take them at the age of tenderness he prefers.

Now antler point restrictions on public lands...go for it! Public resource, public opinion should reign.

[MJ1657]

Very good post jkcmj.

[hockeybc69]

I am with James Walleye and crowd on this one.

[surewood]

I always thought the hunting experience is getting out with friends and family and enjoying the outdoors, harvest or not. Did'nt know that was at the expense of APR. From reading some posts sounds like many Zone 3 hunters pass on does to shoot big bucks already. Which would'nt help the restriction. Don't have any facts on that, just the impression I got.

[DHost21]

Agree with jkcmj on the public land thing too! I dont own land if i did i would manage it the way i want but i hunt public land and I would love and i mean absolutely love to see APR on public land!!

[jtoast]

If this is a social issue, the surveys and meetings showed that the hunters of zone 3 supported regulations to protect bucks. If you think that the DNR made up the results, your paranoid and need medication, I can't help you there. Biologically APR's are a tool for population control. Year one didn't work as planned. How could that be? If you cant shoot a small buck, and you want a deer, you would have shot a doe. That's a sound theory. People didn't shoot does because? They didn't want to (they say 40% don't). They couldn't get to them (90+% private land). Hunting conditions? Less hunters? Of those reasons, are any influenced at all by having APR's or not? Other than a drop in hunters, nothing would. And if someone stopped hunting because of that rule, seems to me they are more concerned about antlers that the trophy guys, and I don't want them whiners in the woods. This needs to play out for two more years, if for no other reason than to give the DNR time to figure out why the doe harvest dropped. If they can't, we're looking at restrictions that we hunters didn't vote for! Ouch

Call your Legislator(s) and tell them to vote this repeal down.

[Rippinlip]

Just have to toss my $.02 in here again.

We got into a little discussion about this last year and I had to laugh.

I told a co-worker that is all for APR that I was in favor of a buck lottery instead of a APR, still protecting bucks, but in a different way.

He replied back to me..."Nobody is going to tell me what I can and can't shoot when a big buck walks past!"

SO I asked him what do you think an APR does?

So there was a person with blinded vision.

It's ok for everyone to be restricted, but him of course.

[james_walleye]

What I get a kick out of is the attitude of those who want to manage everyone elses land for their own personal benefit.

Most people enjoy shooting and seeing big bucks, but not at the expense of being able to enjoy the hunting experience.

The whole thing is rediculous. Even suggesting that you should have the right to tell your neighbor what size antlers he must have on his venison burgers! If he feeds them on his land, I think he has every right to take them at the age of tenderness he prefers.

Now antler point restrictions on public lands...go for it! Public resource, public opinion should reign.

As if other game laws don't apply to private land. You act as if this is something new. Why don't you head up a push to abolish 1 buck a year on private land. How dare someone tell you that you can only shoot 1 buck a year on private land. And how dare they tell you that you can only use a gun for 9 days. And by god you should be able to have pheasant load in your gun to in case you jump a rooster.

[picksbigwagon]

I have been thinking about this the last couple days and if the whole basis of APR in zone 3 was to get people to shoot more doe's, why didn't they try the Earn a buck plan? I know earn a buck has not been wildly successful, but if the number one goal was to get us zone 3 hunters (yes I hunt zone 3 when I hunt in MN) to shoot more doe's, make the guys wanting to kill a buck take a doe first. 8 or more years of very liberal limits on doe's hasn't depleted the doe population, why would making people count antlers work better?

That being said, I was against this idea in the beginning (APR), BUT after the discussions we had here last year, I was accepting the idea of it and I was curious to see what the results were after the three year period. I don't remember anyone arguing last year however that APR's main goal was to reduce the doe population. I read a lot about letting the little bucks grow, the age structure of the heard is out of whack, too many 1.5 yr old bucks are not being allowed to see their full potential (I assume rack size potential). And the one that really gets me everytime: Why don't we have the trophies like Iowa and Wisconsin, we need APR so we can be at the top of the Boone and Crocket List....