New changes to the 2012 deer season?

[naturalistmn]

     Has anyone heard of any proposed changes for the up coming 2012 deer seasons?

     I've been talking with some friends and reading what I can about it.   A friend told me that he had read an article about a new season.   A 14 day firearm season after the regular season that would be regulated to a 4 point restriction.   I didn't read it myself, but I know that it makes no sense.   To have one season regulated and one following it that is.   Insane.   Another reading was one that stated our big game cordinator said deer populations are now where the insurance companies want them.   Really?   That's sad, but confirms what I've been saying.   The money drives the motives.   Too many claims means too many deer.   I'm really getting impatient with this sort of nonsense.   Minnesota game is on the fritz, now more than ever.   Deer populations are dwindling, the ducks are gone, and now pheasants are in really bad shape.   Come on, lets pull our heads out of our butts and get some things right, before we can't.

     In my short 32 years of life I can say " I remember back in the day when..." about a lot of outdoor activities.   Such as when I was a kid ducks would fill the sky and fish were big and plentiful.   That really sucks.   In ten to fifteen years are we going to be saying how you remeber how great things were now because we've lost that much more by then?   God I hope not.   We need to forget about what's going to make the most money.   We need to stop arguing about what deer we should or not shoot.   We need to stop being so liberal with our limits for unjustifiable reasons.   We need to start doing what's best for them, not us.

[cookie]

not a big fan of insurance agency. I was in the auto body trade for 12 years and they controlled that also. I here now the shops do noyt even pay commision just hourly rates.

[deadeye]

There was an article in the Star Trib that indicated someone was asking for this provision.  I don't think it made it past discussions.  No bill was introduced.

Here are a couple interesting changes proposed for this year.  At this time there is no way of knowing if they will eventually end up in the new regulations.

Existing law
97B.071 BLAZE ORANGE REQUIREMENTS.
10.17 (a) Except as provided in rules adopted under paragraph (c), a person may not hunt
10.18 or trap during the open season where deer may be taken by firearms under applicable laws
10.19 and ordinances, unless the visible portion of the person's cap and outer clothing above the
10.20 waist, excluding sleeves and gloves, is blaze orange. Blaze orange includes a camouflage
10.21 pattern of at least 50 percent blaze orange within each foot square. This section does not
10.22 apply to migratory waterfowl hunters on waters of this state or in a stationary shooting
10.23 location or to trappers on waters of this state.
10.24 (b) Except as provided in rules adopted under paragraph (c), and in addition to
10.25 the requirement in paragraph (a), a person may not take small game other than turkey,
10.26 migratory birds, raccoons, and predators, except while trapping, unless a visible portion of
10.27 at least one article of the person's clothing above the waist is blaze orange.

Added to law:
This paragraph does not apply to a person when in a stationary location while hunting deer by archery or when hunting small game by falconry. 

New law:
(b) A person may not obtain any deer license or take deer under a lifetime license
4.22 issued under section 97A.473 for one year after the person is convicted of hunting deer
4.23 with the aid or use of bait under section 97B.328.
4.24 (c) The revocation period under paragraphs (a) and (b) doubles if the conviction
4.25 is for a deer that is a trophy deer scoring higher than 170 using the scoring method
4.26 established for wildlife restitution values adopted under section 97A.345.


Old law with changes: Note the last line. I'm not sure what it means regarding food plots.

Subd. 3. Definition. (a) For purposes of this section, bait includes grains,
12.4 fruits, vegetables, nuts, hay, or other food that is capable of attracting or enticing deer
12.5 and that has been placed by a person. "Baiting" means placing, exposing, depositing,
12.6 distributing, or scattering bait that is capable of attracting or enticing deer.
12.7 (b) Liquid scents, salt, and minerals are not bait if they do not contain liquid
12.8 or solid food ingredients.
12.9 Food that has not been placed by a person and resulting (c) Agricultural crops
12.10 from normal or accepted farming, forest management, wildlife food plantings, orchard
12.11 management, or other similar land management activities is are not bait.
12.12 This exclusion does not apply to agricultural crops that have been re-introduced and
12.13 concentrated where a person is hunting.


What the heck is this? If over 65 you can bait but only prior to the season. Nuts I say

Subd. 5. Persons age 65 or older; firearms season. Notwithstanding subdivision
1.15 1, clause (1), a person age 65 years or older may hunt deer during the firearms season with
1.16 the aid or use of bait or feed. Bait or feed placed by a person under this subdivision must
1.17 be removed no less than three days before the opening of the firearms deer season.
Sec. 2.

[ray634]

This exclusion does not apply to agricultural crops that have been re-introduced and concentrated where a person is hunting.

You may not harvest a field and then put the harvested grain back in the field by your stand and call it normal agricultural practices.



Subd. 5. Persons age 65 or older; firearms season. Notwithstanding subdivision1, clause (1), a person age 65 years or older may hunt deer during the firearms season with the aid or use of bait or feed. Bait or feed placed by a person under this subdivision must be removed no less than three days before the opening of the firearms deer season.

If you are over 65 the old buzzards get to bait a week longer than the young pups.
Maybe they figure it just takes that much longer to get there???

[beeker]

i would love to somehow put a positive spin on some of this but all i can say is "nuts"... next thing that will be in there is right handed shooters must acknowledge how much better lefty's are..  they truly have lost thier ever lovin minds

[naturalistmn]

i would love to somehow put a positive spin on some of this but all i can say is "nuts"... next thing that will be in there is right handed shooters must acknowledge how much better lefty's are..  they truly have lost thier ever lovin minds

 

[deadeye]

beeker, you may have something there.  I think it' unfair for a left hander to pay more for a left handed gun.  I think a subsidy is in order.

[Joe@deerhunters]

170 inch deer is huge! move it down to 140 inch.

[deadeye]

Good point.  I didn't think about the 170 inch too much but yes, it should be lower.

[beeker]

maybe they could have a "draft" each perspective hunter gets a number and they can't shoot their dear until the guy before them does.

[naturalistmn]

Why does it matter how big the deer is?   A conviction is a conviction, whether it's on a 115 inch deer or a 180 inch deer.   The crime is the same.   If you're going to punished for something illegal it should be in stone for a species, not the size of each animal.   That would be like giving a robber a lesser punishment because he didn't get all the cash from the register.

Funny, we have better deer management for our criminals.   They have to pay a throphy fee for deer 170 or over.   Remember, if you're going to commit a crime only poach deer no bigger than the 160's.

A crime is a crime, no matter what species, and no matter the size of the specific animal.

[deadeye]

naturalistmn,  you do have a good point there.  Poaching is poaching.  However, I believe the intent of the law is to stop people from shooting deer with large antlers just to sell the antlers.  I'd be in favor of additonal penalties for poaching a "trophy" buck, however the bar at 170 is way too high.  This would probably exclued 95% of poachers.