Zone 3 APR in jeopardy..

[Stump]

MDHA is all about education. As an organization, they'd much rather educate people than regulate them. Whether it be setting up a committee to help educate hunters on deer management, or sending out magazines, or whatever. Then people can make up their own mind on how to manage their land. Many MDHA members already practice voluntary harvest restrictions (over 60% if I remember the survey numbers).

So then MDHA doesn't care one bit about a management plan or any type of management strategy either today or moving forward is what you're saying. That's very interesting.

Talking about narrow minded individuals. Hunting is a privilege, government stepping in to tell me what I can do on my own property is a big deal. This includes what I want to shoot. If it is the last day of the season and I want to shoot a buck, let me.

MY RIGHTS ARE WORTH MORE THAN YOUR ANTLERS!

So you're asking for the privilege back to once again shoot 1.5 yr old bucks? I live an hr south of the cities. Small pot hole woods, high pressure area, the northern end of area 300. This area and many like it is where I could slightly understand that stance. If you indeed live in SE, I seriously have to laugh. I can come down there and see more deer on stand in one weekend than I will for an entire season here. Hands down the best hunting in the state and you want to be able to shoot a fork. When most likely you've had multiple chances to shoot a doe for meat in the freezer.....you still want to shoot a fork. Is shooting a buck(any buck) and filling your buck tag much more important than anything you hold sacred? I know there's a bit of sarcasm in that question, but it's also a serious one.

[Grasshopper]

Talking about narrow minded individuals. Hunting is a privilege, government stepping in to tell me what I can do on my own property is a big deal. This includes what I want to shoot. If it is the last day of the season and I want to shoot a buck, let me.

MY RIGHTS ARE WORTH MORE THAN YOUR ANTLERS!

Helpme, I am not a landowner, but I think I can understand your frustration with trying to accept APR's or any regulation you don't agree with, on property you've paid a lot of money for. I get that.

What I don't get are these "rights" you claim. Unless you put a high fence around your ground, you don't own the deer, and their management is governed by the state agency. That's the North Am. game management model, and its the envy of the world...

It means, basically, that the same critters that trot around your land are also "owned" by the trophy hunters who live on one side of you, the brown-its-down crew on the other, and me...
I'm the guy hunting the state wildlife area in the neighborhood.

I don't own a thing, and I don't claim any "right" to shoot anything. I accept the rules written by the agency that manages the deer herd....

[south40]

JackSparrow - Why do u post on this site? You clearly dont share the same views as most other members. Do you just enjoy arguing?

[mums]

JackSparrow - Why do u post on this site? You clearly dont share the same views as most other members. Do you just enjoy arguing?

I think you might be on to something

[JackSparrow]

JackSparrow - Why do u post on this site? You clearly dont share the same views as most other members. Do you just enjoy arguing?

Why not? I enjoy posting on this site and getting points from the other side while trying to set people straight about the things I care about. I enjoy a good debate at times as well, but that's certainly not my general purpose.

[Grassbag251]

JackSparrow - Why do u post on this site? You clearly dont share the same views as most other members. Do you just enjoy arguing?

I don't expect everyone to agree with me on here, and he has the right to talk whatever nonsense he wants to.

Talking about narrow minded individuals. Hunting is a privilege, government stepping in to tell me what I can do on my own property is a big deal. This includes what I want to shoot. If it is the last day of the season and I want to shoot a buck, let me.

MY RIGHTS ARE WORTH MORE THAN YOUR ANTLERS!

OK OK so I have two questions for you helpme, and I hope to get sensible answers. First: if the DNR wants more antlerless deer shot how is allowing the harvest of any and all antlered deer, AND cross tagging of antlered deer going to accomplish that? The majority of people that are crying about APR are people that just want to shoot a buck because its a buck. SCENARIO... A season after complaining about APR enough to get it revoked, Hunter John is in his stand having a smoke, and enjoying a beautiful November morning. At about 10 A.M. he hears what could be considered a fully auto 12 Ga. going off a valley over. Realizing rather than a fully auto shotgun it's actually his neighbors finishing up a drive, Hunter John gets ready for what could be a fun 30 seconds. Not much later he hears deer running over the ridge heading straight for him. At 60 yds. he can see the first deer, a mature doe followed closely by two fork horns who have been tending her for two days. =...<< The prior year when talking about APR with his local Rep. they both come to the agreement that the only way to make revoking APR look good is by claiming it doesn't help the goal of increasing antlerless harvest. Hunter John knows deep down inside he really just wants to shoot a buck because he knows he won't have to buy rounds that night vs Hunter Bob who shot bambi. Does he really care about increasing antlerless harvest??? !!! >> Now at about 20 yards the doe turns broadside in a opening to catch her breath. Out at 25 yds. standing in some brush the young bucks have picked out John in the stand. He knows he is going to really have to shoot fast because these deer are already on high alert. 10 seconds later after the smoke has cleared Hunter John is getting out of his stand to go start tracking... YEP YOU GUESSED IT.... the young buck who was wounded from a ricochet off a 6 inch oak. The other buck was dropped with the second shot, and the doe was never even lined up in the sights and ran off while John was slingging lead at the second buck. Later that night you pass the local tavern and see Hunter John's truck parked with the tailgate down. You stop to take a gander at how the day went. In the bed of the truck you find two 1 1/2 year old fork horns, one with John's tag and one with Bob's even though John shot both of them. Now the season is over for the both of them and all they have to do is cut up the deer. When Bob finished boning the last carcass he drags them both out to the dumpster. John yells at him HEY, WHERE ARE YOU GOING WITH THEM I WAS GONNA MOUNT THEM! Bob pauses for a second and looks confused towards John. Realizing he his just joking they both start laughing and crack open a brew before starting to cut steaks and grind burger. When you were looking at one of the bucks you can't help but recognize some similarities between it and the big 4 1/2 year old you shot the weekend before. Having access to a DNA testing center you take a hair sample from the buck and run it with a sample from your large 4 1/2 yo. When the results come back you find out the older buck you shot was 99.9% positive to be the father of Hunter John's buck whos rack was thrown out with the carcass after processing.

A long story I know, but I'm trying to point out that A. revoking APR and reinstating cross tagging is not going to help increasing antlerless harvest one bit, and B. Its hard not to look at the harvest of young bucks as a waste of resource.

My second question is this helpme: Did you have such a fit years ago when in order for a buck to be a legal it had to have AT LEAST 3" of antler? I mean come on how are you going to let the government tell you what makes a legal deer? What if you thought a legal buck should only require a ball sack to hang in the tree after gutting it?

Finally a good point has been made and I hope everyone understands it, the free ranging deer belong to NO ONE!!!!!! When your nieghbor shoots a buck you have been feeding, hunting for three years I dare you to take him to civil court and recoup cost. GET REAL!!!!

[Stump]

JackSparrow - Why do u post on this site? You clearly dont share the same views as most other members. Do you just enjoy arguing?

We all should be able post our own views openly for discussion, that's one of the purposes of the this website. Whether a view point is popular or not, that shouldn't deter someone from posting it.

[Grasshopper]

We all should be able post our own views openly for discussion, that's one of the purposes of the this website. Whether a view point is popular or not, that shouldn't deter someone from posting it.

I couldn't agree more...

[south40]

I never said Jack doesn't have the right to post whatever he wants to post.

[MuscleOnTheRidge]

Keep up the good work. That was a very thoughtful and well stated post above. It is a shame, but much of the storyline is true. Very interesting debate to say the least.

MOTR

[Swens]

Maybe some of you already got this same response from Rep Drazkowski, but if you haven't I thought I would share it with everyone on here. He is just one of the Reps and I am sure they do not all have the same opinion and stance that he does.....at least I would hope not. At least he was kind enough to draft a mass response for anyone that contacted him regarding APR and cross tagging.

Hi Josh,

Thanks for writing me on this topic. As you know, the DNR instituted the APR (antler point restrictions) and buck cross-tagging prohibition in zone 3 last season. These prohibitions were brought forward by the DNR upon the urging of two different hunting groups in SE MN that both have continually expressed interest in limiting the ability of firearms season deer hunters to shoot bucks. They would like the government to implement policies that they believe would increase the number of large bucks in the region by limiting the ability of hunters to participate in the deer hunting tradition in zone 3.

In 2009, the DNR conducted a random sample survey of zone 3 deer hunters to gather their interest in applying regulations that some believe would increase the size of these bucks. Although neither of the two hunting prohibitions that were eventually selected by the DNR for implementation during the 2010, 2011, and 2012 seasons (APR and cross-tagging prohibition for bucks) received support from a majority of the respondents, the DNR went ahead with the restrictions, anyway.

After the 2010 season, I received dozens of reports from frustrated hunters, some of which complained about the wasting of the resource that they observed as they found dead bucks that didn't meet the APR, laying dead in cornfields and in wooded areas. Others shared that the prohibitions forced them to pass on bucks that they couldn't distinguish whether or not they were big enough - only to let them pass and later learn that it was their only chance to harvest a deer the entire season. Some long-time deer hunters have told me that if these regulations are not eliminated, they will be ending their involvement in the Minnesota tradition of deer hunting. Last month, I received a petition filled out by over 1,000 zone 3 deer hunters, asking that these prohibitions be eliminated.

After reviewing the DNR's hunter and deer harvest data for the 2010 season, it was learned that these restrictions have lead to significant reductions in hunter participation in zone 3 and a very large reduction in deer harvest numbers during the 2010 season. Doe harvest numbers were even less than the 2009 season in zone 3. This lies in stark contrast to the statewide numbers, that showed both an increase in hunter numbers and an increase in deer (both bucks and does) harvested.

The deer numbers in SE MN continue to be very high, with car crashes endangering the lives of our residents and aggravating the economic stability. The deer population problem came to light in December of 2010, when chronic wasting disease was discovered in the western part of zone 3. Deer numbers were measured at 4 times the recommended deer densities.

These are the reasons that I support this measure to end these counter-productive prohibitions that have been foisted upon the hunters of SE MN by the DNR.

Steve.


Steve Drazkowski
State Representative
District 28B
Room 401 State Office Building
100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
St. Paul, MN 55155-1298
Office: 651-296-2273
Fax: 651-297-7523

[Grassbag251]

Who is in possession of this petition against APR? I don't doubt there is one, I would just like to see it and verify signatures.

REMINDER IF YOU CARE ABOUT KEEPING APR:

SIGN THE ELECTRONIC ONLINE PETITION @ http://www.change.org/petitions/supp...-943-and-hf984

AND CALL OR EMAIL LEGISLATORS AND VOICE YOUR CONCERNS.

MOTR,

That story is the reality of what is going to happen. Feel free to summarize the topics/main points and share. Unfortunatley I'm schooling out of state right now so I'm sure I wont be able to make any meetings on the issue. Please drop that senario on protesters of APR and cross tagging when they talk about the need for antlerless harvest.

I find it funny in Draz's letter how people complain about not being able to shoot something because they couldn't identify it.... my suggestion to them would be, GO BACK TO GUN SAFETY CLASS!!! If you can't identify points on a rack your probably not taking a safe, clean, ethical shot... that or you need to stop buying binoculars in the toy department and Wally World

[Bowhuntrben]

It is nice to see that Rep Drazkowski feels the way that he does. If the statistics he mentions are true, then the regulations should be changed back. I will admit that I haven't done any digging to verify these statistics, so he may not be telling the truth. I wouldn't take any of the DNR's statistics on hunter opinion to necessarily be any more truthful than what Rep Drazkowski is stating from harvest data.
I do know that I have found more dead young bucks this spring than I have ever found before. Claim whatever reason you want for this, I find it very doubtful that they were all shot by youth hunters and lost.
The fact that most people on this site are in favor of APRs and prohibiting cross-tagging certainly doesn't mean that it is the popular belief of everybody hunting in that area. Most people that will join a site like this are likely the type that would be in favor of these regulations.
I came across an odd situation this last fall, and I am not sure how the DNR would've handled it had I shot. A buck came along, and I could see it had points coming out everywhere. It was smaller than I wanted to shoot, but it certainly had more than 5 points on each side. It was only 20-25 yards away. I came to find out later that it was a buck that had another antler wedged between his antler and his head (there is a video of him on this site). In this case, the buck still had 4 points per side, but what if it hadn't and I had shot? I would never be anticipating that a buck would have another antler wedged in there like that, and I suspect none of you would either. I thought the deer just had a third beam (as we have seen on deer down there before). This is certainly a very special case. I am just curious how it would've been handled.
Not pertaining to the case I just mentioned, I think that if the DNR had put a little more thought into these regulations and input some common sense into them, they could have been a lot more successful.

[pinski79]

[QUOTE=Grassbag251;44778]Who is in possession of this petition against APR? I don't doubt there is one, I would just like to see it and verify signatures.

I saw one months ago going around. I looked at it. It was all local people. It had their name, address, sig. and phone number.

[Grassbag251]

Interesting article worth reading

http://barringer.bowhuntingroad.com/...g-family-fued/



https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&p...nA1MPklg&pli=1

Looking at the stats from the survey you can't help but wonder how many of the 1,175 that didn't fill out and return the survey put their signature on the petition to revoke APR. My feeling... if you didn't care then why do you care now?

[JackSparrow]

Interesting article worth reading

http://barringer.bowhuntingroad.com/...g-family-fued/



https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&p...nA1MPklg&pli=1

Looking at the stats from the survey you can't help but wonder how many of the 1,175 that didn't fill out and return the survey put their signature on the petition to revoke APR. My feeling... if you didn't care then why do you care now?

is it not entirely possible that those 1,175 people that didn't return it didn't think it would affect the way they hunt, but now they realize it did?

It seems that very few people actually read the regulations each year. They go out assuming they can shoot their doe or buck and be done with (Lou had mentioned something like 85% of successful hunters only shoot a single deer each year), so they figured the regulations didn't pertain to them since that's what they've always done. I know quite a few people (that I do and don't hunt with) that were that was. Probably a third of my hunting party didn't know the regulations until after 3A when we explained what had happened to them, and they were livid. I imagine there's a good number of hunters that were the same way.

And looking at the survey from 2009 (again -- http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/recreat...one3survey.pdf), isn't there only 47% support for APR's (page 8)? Eliminating the "neither" option is not a valid way to do a statistical survey, unless you're pushing a certain angle, since it's entirely possible that every single one of those "neither" selections could have selected "against", or could have selected "for" had there been no other choice (I took enough statistics in college to understand this, apparently our big game coordinator didn't). Also, in the middle of page 5 of the survey report, does it not say that 50.9% of respondents replied that the DNR "should not enact buck regulations?" Does it not also say that 54% of respondents replied that the DNR "should not band cross-tagging of bucks?" I could have sworn there was a majority of respondents that said they would like to enact APR's ad would like to end cross-tagging, but Lou's own survey says otherwise.

If you don't use every single response received, a survey isn't valid. If you eliminate a response to push a certain angle, a survey is no longer scientific, and therefor is't valid. In this case, these regulations were pushed using numbers generated by eliminating people's responses (the "neither" options), and thus this survey is no longer scientific or valid, and these regulations were pushed without public support, even though hunters were told they wouldn't be put in place without majority support.

Also, on your Barringer article, isn't BWA actually opposed to APR's as pointed out by an earlier post i this thread somewhere? I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure someone mentioned BWA's opposition to APR's, and that they support moving the seasons. Your article says "Antler Point Restrictions were instituted in SE Minnesota and are supported by the BWA." Assuming I'm correct in the fact that BWA as an organization of approximately 180 members (as calculated from their tax forms - 990 I believe--probably incorrect on that number though since I'm not the tax guy) does not support APR's, then this article is entirely false.

Or am I incorrect in thinking that BWA doesn't support APR's? In which case, they've done more flip-flopping than has happened the last 4 presidential campaigns.

[WATD]

Well I did find out something today, Drazkowski bases his entire arguement on the results of one hypothetical question on the survey. What is your ideal season? He dismisses all other data in the survey apparently. He used an analogy that when you ask people if they want to lower the deficit, they will automatically say yes, but from that you can't presume they want higher taxes. He failed to follow up to what his reaction would be if of all the solutions, surveys showed that people wanted their taxes raised to fix the deficit. I asked what he would do if raising taxes was the most supported solution, but with under 50% support. Would he not raise taxes, do nothing and allow the decifit to increase?
Yeah Steve, I'll buy that.

[Stump]

It seems that very few people actually read the regulations each year. They go out assuming they can shoot their doe or buck and be done with (Lou had mentioned something like 85% of successful hunters only shoot a single deer each year), so they figured the regulations didn't pertain to them since that's what they've always done. I know quite a few people (that I do and don't hunt with) that were that was. Probably a third of my hunting party didn't know the regulations until after 3A when we explained what had happened to them, and they were livid. I imagine there's a good number of hunters that were the same way.

There's no excuse for NOT reading the regs on a yearly basis to make sure you fully know and understand the changes. It has nothing to do with last year's reg changes, that has to do with being lazy. "Oh, but I didn't know" just doesn't cut it anymore IMO. When you buy your license, there's a FREE book laying right there. How about a computer? Grab a beer and start reading, information is not hard to come by.

Regardless of that, to me it's surprising that people don't keep up on daily life more than they do whether it's politics, the news or things happening with our natural resources. If something means that much to you, why wait until it's changed and then care about it? It's bizarre to me. At the very least, get a subscription to Outdoor News. Then you'll know about 90% of what's going on in MN.

[MuscleOnTheRidge]

That story is the reality of what is going to happen. Feel free to summarize the topics/main points and share. Unfortunatley I'm schooling out of state right now so I'm sure I wont be able to make any meetings on the issue. Please drop that senario on protesters of APR and cross tagging when they talk about the need for antlerless harvest.

I find it funny in Draz's letter how people complain about not being able to shoot something because they couldn't identify it.... my suggestion to them would be, GO BACK TO GUN SAFETY CLASS!!! If you can't identify points on a rack your probably not taking a safe, clean, ethical shot... that or you need to stop buying binoculars in the toy department and Wally World

Grassbag, That is the truth, and it is how I feel about it as well.

And.... Right on Stump! The rules of hunting, fishing, and trapping have become very fluid in the past 10 years, and if you have not read a rule book in a while, you are part of the problem. I have gotten into the habit of at least checking the "New Rules for 2011" page to see what is up for the year.

I too got the letter from Draz and sent him a reply. Sorry to bore you with it.

Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Dave.

Steve.



Steve Drazkowski
State Representative
District 28B
Room 401 State Office Building
100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
St. Paul, MN 55155-1298
Office: 651-296-2273
Fax: 651-296-5378
Sign up for email updates at http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/mem...n.asp?id=15286

>>> David Adcock <dadcock@exchange.hbci.com> 4/11/2011 10:05 AM >>>
Steve,
Thanks for detailed and well stated reply. It really is a sticky issue when you start tinkering with something that is such an integral part of Minnesota culture. It seems as though there is no right answer or answer that is pleasing or satisfactory to either side of the deer herd management debate. As an avid outdoorsman, I have close friends in each camp of this debate, and both sides are committed to the differing facts of the debate and have the data to back it up. It is funny that way. Data is only as good as the person interpreting it, and it is rare that two people would share an interpretation while having differing agendas. Just think about a couple of things for me while contemplating this debate, and I will be satisfied with whatever the outcome.

Tolerance to different points of view is paramount. Intolerance is not the answer, no matter how vocal the intolerant become. The APR and cross-tagging debate was an attempt to do something instead of nothing to change the health and composition of the deer herd by sparing young bucks and taking more antlerless deer. You can't govern based on the worst case scenario because some folks simply pull the trigger before verifying their target. We have rules for vast majority of hunters and fisherman knowing that most people will follow the rules to the best of their ability and others will not. You should not remove a rule or restriction because a small minority of people can't seem to abide by it. The APR and CTR was proposed for 3 years. Let the plan run the course, then evaluate the results.
I heard the classic line yesterday. "Do you know how hard it is to figure out if a deer has antlers if it is flying by on drive through the brush, then figure out if it is a legal buck before you shoot?" There are so many things wrong with that sentence, and it is at the very core of the debate for proponents of withdrawing the current APR and CTR. Indiscriminate drives and cross-tagging bucks is the single biggest problem with herd management in my opinion. You can't "manage" after you pull the trigger. This is the hunter that is going to shoot 3 bucks and place his kids tags on them robbing them of the opportunity to harvest their own buck. Not all the time mind you, but to say that in the large parties they don't use the kids tags first would be denying the unfortunate truth.
Back in 2005 the DNR introduced 3A as an either-sex season and that has single-handedly changed the complexion of the deer season in SE MN. The numbers of hunters in each season has done a complete reversal with now 62% of hunters participate in 3A versus only 40% hunting 3A in 2004. That in itself has contributed to the decline in overall deer hunters in our area as large family groups from western and west central MN that used to visit and hunt our area during 3B now stay home to hunt due to significantly reduced hunter opportunity and hunter success rates during 3B from 2006 until now. The deer are largely nocturnal, and numbers are down in areas that allow hunting because they have been hit so hard and pressured for two full weeks. The deer that remain are nocturnal or move into areas that do not allow hunting or significantly limit hunting on a pay for hunt basis. The DNR knows where these areas are, and they will be the next battleground for deer hunting. My point is, the rules were changed and no petition was going to turn the DNR around prior them evaluating the result of the rule change. I put together a meeting with the residents of Vinegar Ridge and the DNR a couple weeks ago, and believe me, they are very concerned with the hunter shift to 3A and the unanticipated negative impact it has had on hunters during 3B. 3B is a shell of what it once was, and the local economy is taking the hit for it. The DNR should limit their management goals to the areas that they can manage, and that would not include the vast tracts of lease only and privately held sanctuaries that will not allow hunting. I called the meeting with the DNR because our portion of southwest 346 has been decimated by 8 years of over-harvest on State Forest Land and small private properties that allow public hunting. It is difficult to keep kids engaged in the sport of hunting when they sit hours and days without as much as a distant encounter with their quarry. Another year like this, and Rushford-Peterson will have a hell of golf team, because these young people will find something more engaging to participate in.

It is a huge debate, and I have rambled on enough. It is unfortunate that the hunting public is so divided on this issue, as our opponents are sure to smell the blood in the water. Divided we fall.

No matter what the result, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate. That is what makes our country great.

Respectfully,

Dave Adcock
Money Creek, MN

[Grassbag251]

is it not entirely possible that those 1,175 people that didn't return it didn't think it would affect the way they hunt, but now they realize it did?

It seems that very few people actually read the regulations each year. They go out assuming they can shoot their doe or buck and be done with (Lou had mentioned something like 85% of successful hunters only shoot a single deer each year), so they figured the regulations didn't pertain to them since that's what they've always done. I know quite a few people (that I do and don't hunt with) that were that was. Probably a third of my hunting party didn't know the regulations until after 3A when we explained what had happened to them, and they were livid. I imagine there's a good number of hunters that were the same way.

And looking at the survey from 2009 (again -- http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/recreat...one3survey.pdf), isn't there only 47% support for APR's (page 8)? Eliminating the "neither" option is not a valid way to do a statistical survey, unless you're pushing a certain angle, since it's entirely possible that every single one of those "neither" selections could have selected "against", or could have selected "for" had there been no other choice (I took enough statistics in college to understand this, apparently our big game coordinator didn't). Also, in the middle of page 5 of the survey report, does it not say that 50.9% of respondents replied that the DNR "should not enact buck regulations?" Does it not also say that 54% of respondents replied that the DNR "should not band cross-tagging of bucks?" I could have sworn there was a majority of respondents that said they would like to enact APR's ad would like to end cross-tagging, but Lou's own survey says otherwise.

If you don't use every single response received, a survey isn't valid. If you eliminate a response to push a certain angle, a survey is no longer scientific, and therefor is't valid. In this case, these regulations were pushed using numbers generated by eliminating people's responses (the "neither" options), and thus this survey is no longer scientific or valid, and these regulations were pushed without public support, even though hunters were told they wouldn't be put in place without majority support.

Also, on your Barringer article, isn't BWA actually opposed to APR's as pointed out by an earlier post i this thread somewhere? I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure someone mentioned BWA's opposition to APR's, and that they support moving the seasons. Your article says "Antler Point Restrictions were instituted in SE Minnesota and are supported by the BWA." Assuming I'm correct in the fact that BWA as an organization of approximately 180 members (as calculated from their tax forms - 990 I believe--probably incorrect on that number though since I'm not the tax guy) does not support APR's, then this article is entirely false.

Or am I incorrect in thinking that BWA doesn't support APR's? In which case, they've done more flip-flopping than has happened the last 4 presidential campaigns.

Sparrow,

It is entirely possible that those 1,175 people that didn't return it didn't think it would affect the way they hunt, but now they realize it did. That is my point exactly... I have a lot of conservative friends who like to complain about the President of our country. When I asked them who they voted for so many said they didn't vote. I was fortunate enough to get one of the 3,000 surveys. I filled it out and then filled up the comment space with a abbreviated version of why I picked what I did. I then took 20 minutes to write a more in depth letter to the DNR voicing my opinion. There is no good excuse for being lazy.

I don't have enough knowlege on how surverys and polls are analyzed, but I have confidence the DNR knows what they are doing.

I don't know what BWA's stance is on the issue, I just thought it was a interesting article with views from both sides. It shows the MDHA's obvious view point, whether they want to admit it or not.