Zone 3 APR in jeopardy..

[MuscleOnTheRidge]

See below. If you want to keep the current APR in place, I would highly recommend that you contact your Representative or Senator and let them know how you feel.

MOTR



David:

Thank you for your email. I was one of only 4 people who voted against the bill on a roll call vote in committee yesterday. Here is a link to the story in the nonpartisan Session Daily:

http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hin...p?storyid=2602


Rick

Rick Hansen
State Representative
247 State Office Building
(651) 296-6828

Feel free to sign up for my weekly updates: http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/mem...n.asp?id=12282

>>> <dadcock@hbci.com> 4/5/2011 8:46 AM >>>
Please work as hard as you can to keep the current zone 3 APR in place for a couple more years. It seems like a solid plan to prevent MN from having to go to an Earn A Buck type system, and it is too early to know if it is effective or not. I live and hunt and Zone 346 and see the antler restriction and cross-tagging restriction as a good plan to modify the herd composition. Please do not let this plan get rescinded until we know how well it works. It is still too early to know. In two years from know, it will either be the best idea the DNR has ever had or something less than that, but we need to let it run the course. Respectfully,
Dave Adcock
Money Creek, MN.

David Adcock
3181 Christianson Hill Rd.
Houston MN, 55943

rep.rick.hansen@house.mn

[Grassbag251]

Thank for the heads up on this MOTR. I just called DRAZ who had a very brief time to talk. I told him with all issues aside, you can't implement something like this for one year and expect to have accurate data for analysis. He said the DNR was there and talked about the outcome of last years season. They came to the conclusion that antlerless kills went down 12% and hunter numbers went down something like 3%. He said he couldn't remember the numbers exactly. Obviously they want more antlerless deer harvested. I sugguested lowering the anterless tag fee, and then laughed saying in a dream will they ever lower fees.

Like I said, and am in agreement with you... YOU CANT EXPECT SOMETHING LIKE THIS TO WORK RIGHT AWAY! I thought this was suppose to be in effect for 3 years, and then reevaluated? Other options need to be looked at before scrapping this.

Any suggestions on where we can go from here to stop this?

[Stump]

The main problem with our wildlife and outdoors is that the regs/rules created come from legislation with "influence" from other sources. When you have uninformed people in the house/senate in a lot of cases with personal agendas, crazy stuff happens. The DNR at times are merely puppets enforcing the laws created at the capital.



http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/aud...007&ls_year=87

testimony and discussion occurred near the end of the meeting and final vote occurred then.

All Republican committee members present vote aye on the bill. DFL Reps Dill and Persell voted aye. DFL Reps Hansen, Hilty, Knuth and Falk voted no.

[MuscleOnTheRidge]

Here is a note from State Senator Jeremy Miller on the issue. I did hear about and was asked to sign a couple of petitions to revoke the APR and I refused, but there were a lot of signatures on it. These guys were simply going bar to bar and having every person in the place sign the petition whether they hunted or not, so I not convinced that there is such a ground swell of support to revoke the APR.

FYI.. This reply was to a friend of mine.


Good morning Tom,


Thank you for the email and I appreciate your thoughts on the deer hunting restrictions in southern Minnesota. Here is where I am at...

This issue was first brought to my attention shortly after the November 2nd election by Mr. Michael Sieve from Houston County. Mr. Sieve is very much in favor of the DNR's position on these issues. I also heard from our local chapter of the Minnesota Deer Hunter's Association, who opposes the DNR's position on this issue. I have seen information and facts from both groups.

In addition to hearing from Mr. Sieve and the MDHA, I have heard from multiple farmers, land owners, families and individual hunters that do not support the DNR's position on these issues. I have received multiple emails, phone calls, and petitions specifically on these issues. I have also had several Town Hall meetings over the past couple months where people have expressed their opposition to these deer hunting restrictions. Many folks have personally told me that if nothing changes, they will not continue to deer hunt. I don't think this is the direction the State of Minnesota wants to go.

My original intent was not to get involved, but with the number of constituents who have approached me on this issue, I feel we need to have a conversation about these restrictions. I do not personally have a stance on the issue, other than listening and working together with the people in southeastern Minnesota to come up with a good solution. We are so fortunate to have some of the best natural resources, including hunting and fishing, in the country located in southeastern Minnesota and we must make sure our citizens have an opportunity to take advantage of them.

Please feel free to give me a call if you would like to discuss this issue in more detail. My office number is 651-296-5649. Also, please let me know if you have any ideas on how we could bring everyone together to come up with a compromise.


Thanks again for the email and have a great day,
Jeremy




--------------------

JEREMY MILLER
State Senator, District 31
320 State Capitol Building
75 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
St. Paul, MN 55155
(651) 296-5649

Proudly serving Fillmore, Houston, and Winona Counties


MOTR

[Stump]

MDHA being behind this is no surprise at all.

Tom Hackbarth is the author of HF984.

[Dor]

Typical. MDHA

[helpme]

This was posted at the following blog of the Outdoor News....a response to who was behind the legislation and who testified.

http://outdoornews.com/minnesota/blo...cc4c002e0.html

Antler point and no cross-tagging restrictions in zone 3 were instituted last year by DNR under the explanation that they were trying to reduce doe populations. After the restrictions were put in place, but before deer season began, DNR realized that parts of zone 3 would be lottery permit areas because previous doe harvest had been over done, but the APR & Tagging restrictions still went into place. The point is that they were promoted as an answer to a biological concern of reducing doe populations, but the real reason for their implementation was purely social - to raise bigger bucks. For those who do no hunt in SE MN, there already is a phenomenal buck resource down there. Just go ask a local taxidermist. But, most of the hunters don't score and register their wall hangers in record books because they simply don't want people to know how good the resource is. The Drazkowski bill to eliminate the APR & crosstagging restrictions is a direct result of the locals telling their politicians that they are very much opposed to DNR's restrictions. MDHA was not the instigator of this, it was local hunters who got together and were represented by their politicians. MDHA did testify on behalf of the bill, but that is about it.

[helpme]

Another response to a blog on the Outdoor News site.

http://outdoornews.com/minnesota/blo...cc4c002e0.html


***, don't be so haste to blame the bill on MDHA. Yes, MDHA did testify in favor of the bill to remove the antler point restrictions and no-cross tagging restrictions in zone 3, but MDHA was not instrumental in the drafting of the bill. The impetus for the bill came from the grass roots vocal input of local residents in SE MN. Some may have been MDHA members, but primarily they were not. There was at least one sportsmen's club (not an MDHA chapter) involved in putting forth a petition to get rid of aprs and no crosstagging. The petition has roughly 1,000 signatures on it. MDHA's Bluff Country chapter had a similar survey passed around over a year ago that garnered over 1,000 signatures. DNR received a copy of that one. i don't know if they have seen the new one by the other group. Bottom line is that there are a lot of locals in SE MN who are not at all happy with the restrictions. MDHA just testified on behalf of its members, and MDHA was not involved in drafting the bill

[Dor]

"don't be so haste to blame the bill on MDHA. Yes, MDHA did testify in favor of the bill"
textbook definition of OXYMORON.

[Grassbag251]

Rep. Miller has been nothing but an open minded representative since the day he took office. I think he would be a good person to start with to point out some obvious flaws in the system. I think we should get together a list of other options to look at before voting on this.

Like I said before the goal of the DNR IMO is for more antlerless harvest. The problem I see that is quite prominent is hunter saturation during first season (3A). When I talked to Draz this afternoon he said originally based on DNR info that hunters were down 6% last year. They then recanted that statement and said it was only around 3%. I have a hard time believing that, and think they should try and do some more refiguring because I saw more orange last year than ever before. Like MOTR has said, allowing antlerless harvest during 3A might have been the biggest mistake. I agree this has brought more hunters to purchase a tag for that season. With that said it doesn't take a biologist to find a link between increased pressure and nocturnal activity, and a link between nocturnal activity and lower harvest rates.

Maybe we can get concerns together in a letter to give to legislation for review. If anyone is interested in working together to get something done let me know.

[hawkeye]

"don't be so haste to blame the bill on MDHA. Yes, MDHA did testify in favor of the bill"
textbook definition of OXYMORON.

Here's an oxymoron for you MN fellers.

I love MDHA and I love making my state better for big bucks.

[cornfedkiller]

Here's an oxymoron for you MN fellers.

I love MDHA and I love making my state better for big bucks.

Huh?

[helpme]

[QUOTE=Grassbag251;44665]Rep. Miller has been nothing but an open minded representative since the day he took office.

When I talked to Draz this afternoon he said originally based on DNR info that hunters were down 6% last year. They then recanted that statement and said it was only around 3%. I have a hard time believing that, and think they should try and do some more refiguring because I saw more orange last year than ever before. QUOTE]

I have seen the updated numbers. The original 2010 harvest report was incorrect and had a 6% decrease. There was a 3.1% decrease in hunters during 2010 in zone 3. The doe harvest has not changed more than 108 deer in the last 3 years. I believe one of the articles I read stated that you could give out as many doe permits as you would like and people would still harvest what they would use or need.

Sorry for such a crude way of posting. The 3a and 3b and the 1st total was the hunter numbers.

Year --- 3A--- 3B ---- Total ---- Buck --- Antlerless--- Buck --- Antlerless- Buck --Antlerless--Total
2010 ---23,756-- 15,278--- 39,034 --- 3,894--- 4,864 ---1,021--- 4,664--- 4,915--- 9,528 14,443

[Stump]

I would like to see real numbers, actual factual links provided to support the numbers being thrown around.

Additionally, do we base management whether biologically or socially on one year of stats? I believe not! APRs were suppose to last 3 yrs and then were suppose to be reevaluated. Why not let them run their course and see what happens? If then, the MAJORITY of area 300 hunters disliked the change......it moved to something else. I'll reiterate......the majority.

[helpme]

I would like to see real numbers, actual factual links provided to support the numbers being thrown around.

Contact Lou, he will send it to you.

[helpme]

I did not know you could attach a file.

[helpme]

Let us just cut to the chase and do buck permits....I would be able to live with it.

[cornfedkiller]

Additionally, do we base management whether biologically or socially on one year of stats? I believe not! APRs were suppose to last 3 yrs and then were suppose to be reevaluated. Why not let them run their course and see what happens? If then, the MAJORITY of area 300 hunters disliked the change......it moved to something else. I'll reiterate......the majority.

I couldnt agree more...

[Stump]

Let us just cut to the chase and do buck permits....I would be able to live with it.

And the point in that would be? I fail to understand your agenda and/or the basis of what you're trying to get at.

If you thought at one point the % of hunters that were "quitting" hunting because of the current APRs was too great, those numbers would skyrocket if the state went to a buck tag lottery system in any fashion.

[cornfedkiller]

And the point in that would be? I fail to understand your agenda and/or the basis of what you're trying to get at.

If you thought at one point the % of hunters that were "quitting" hunting because of the current APRs was too great, those numbers would skyrocket if the state went to a buck tag lottery system in any fashion.

I dont think he was complaining about the decrease in numbers, just simply stating the fact. Correct me if Im wrong, but I dont think he is opposed to the APRs, and is saying we might as well just do it all the way and have to apply, and he would still be fine with it..

I think thats what he's saying anyways?