DEER HUNTERS - NEED YOUR SUPPORT

[Mayfly]

I just confirmed this... we need your help. They are trying to take away the Zone 3 restrictions.

VOTE IS TOMORROW!!!!

Here’s a link to the website. The section that eliminates the APR in Zone 3 is Sec. 62 at the end: http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/comm/docs/A11-0225.pdf



This is the text:



Sec. 62. DEER HUNTING RULES.

25.30 (a) The commissioner of natural resources shall not adopt a rule applicable for the

25.31 Series 300 deer permit areas that:

(1) imposes an antler point restriction for taking antlered 26.1 deer other than that

26.2 imposed under Minnesota Rules, part 6232.0200, subpart 6; or

26.3 (2) prohibits party hunting for antlered deer according to Minnesota Statutes, section

26.4 97B.301, subdivision 3.

26.5 (b) The commissioner of natural resources shall amend Minnesota Rules, part

26.6 6232.1300, subpart 3, item B, to allow legal bucks to be taken in season option A for a

26.7 nine-day period beginning the Saturday nearest November 6. The commissioner may use

26.8 the good cause exemption under Minnesota Statutes, section 14.388, subdivision 1, clause

26.9 (3), to adopt rules under this section, and Minnesota Statutes, section 14.386, does not

26.10 apply except as provided in Minnesota Statutes, section 14.388.


I HAVE A LETTER AND THE EMAIL ADDRESSES OF EVERYONE ON THE COMMITTEE.

[Mayfly]

If you are interested in testifying in person (either for or against), you’ll need to contact Amy Rudolph at (651) 296-1774.  She is the committee administrator.

Here is a list of email addresses you should include:

Denny McNamara (R)
E-mail: rep.denny.mcnamara@house.mn

Duane Quam (R)
E-mail: rep.duane.quam@house.mn

David Hancock (R)
rep.david.hancock@house.mn


Feel free to copy the rest of the committee in on this:

Paul Torkelson (R)
E-mail: rep.paul.torkelson@house.mn

Jean Wagenius (DFL)
E-mail: rep.jean.wagenius@house.mn

Bill Hilty (DFL)
E-mail: rep.bill.hilty@house.mn

Paul Anderson (R)
E-mail: rep.paul.anderson@house.mn

Michael Beard (R)
E-mail: rep.mike.beard@house.mn
   
David Dill (DFL)
E-mail: rep.david.dill@house.mn

Steve Drazkowski (R)
E-mail: rep.steve.drazkowski@house.mn

Dan Fabian (R)
E-mail: rep.dan.fabian@house.mn

Andrew Falk (DFL)
E-mail: rep.andrew.falk@house.mn

Tom Hackbarth (R)
E-mail: rep.tom.hackbarth@house.mn

David Hancock (R)
E-mail: rep.david.hancock@house.mn

Rick Hansen (DFL)
E-mail: rep.rick.hansen@house.mn
   
Kate Knuth (DFL)
E-mail: rep.kate.knuth@house.mn
   
John Persell (DFL)
E-mail: rep.john.persell@house.mn

Peggy Scott (R)
E-mail: rep.peggy.scott@house.mn






Here is a Letter that was sent:

Dear Environment, Energy and Natural Resources Policy and Finance Committee Member,

I DO NOT SUPPORT the following language in the amendment to H.F. No. 984:

25.29 Sec. 62. DEER HUNTING RULES.
25.30 (a) The commissioner of natural resources shall not adopt a rule applicable for the
25.31 Series 300 deer permit areas that:
(1) imposes an antler point restriction for taking antlered 26.1 deer other than that
26.2 imposed under Minnesota Rules, part 6232.0200, subpart 6; or
26.3 (2) prohibits party hunting for antlered deer according to Minnesota Statutes, section
26.4 97B.301, subdivision 3.
26.5 (b) The commissioner of natural resources shall amend Minnesota Rules, part
26.6 6232.1300, subpart 3, item B, to allow legal bucks to be taken in season option A for a
26.7 nine-day period beginning the Saturday nearest November 6. The commissioner may use
26.8 the good cause exemption under Minnesota Statutes, section 14.388, subdivision 1, clause
26.9 (3), to adopt rules under this section, and Minnesota Statutes, section 14.386, does not
26.10 apply except as provided in Minnesota Statutes, section 14.388.

I am not sure you understand the great deal of research that has gone into the development of this pilot project.  There has been a lot of hard work by thousands of individuals that will be absolutely destroyed if you include this language.  According to the QDMA's Whitetail Report, which is based on data and scientific evidence, Minnesota is regarded as one of the poorest managed whitetail populations.  Those who opposed these rules have no data to back up their arguments, which is why the MN DNR has been supportive of the efforts to institute the new regulations in zone 3.  Last year was year one of this 3-year trial.  Why must you find the need to derail the DNR's efforts so early in the project?  What scientific evidence do you have that indicates this is a bad thing?

Minnesota has had its base current regulations in place for essentially 30+ years.  It is time for change.  This is how 22 other states have already changed and quite frankly, if we had it our way, we would want more strict regulations.  These regulations are a complete compromise.  Everything you may hear about these new regulations catering to one group is an absolute lie.  The regulations as they are now are what we have always thought of as a nice middle ground where everyone can be happy, they just have to give them a chance.

Lastly I am very angry at how this rule got pushed through without input from groups like Bluffland Whitetails and the Quality Deer Management Association.  There is a reason why it was done this way.  The surveys done by the MN DNR show that the majority of hunters support the new rules and the passage of this bill with the language above will only satisfy a minority of the population.  Last I checked, it was a Representatives job to do what the majority of the people wanted, not the minority!

Please take this language out!

[Mayfly]

Here is an easy copy and paste of the emails:

rep.denny.mcnamara@house.mn,
rep.paul.torkelson@house.mn,
rep.jean.wagenius@house.mn,
rep.bill.hilty@house.mn,
rep.paul.anderson@house.mn,
rep.mike.beard@house.mn,
rep.david.dill@house.mn,
rep.steve.drazkowski@house.mn,
rep.dan.fabian@house.mn,
rep.andrew.falk@house.mn,
rep.tom.hackbarth@house.mn,
rep.david.hancock@house.mn,
rep.rick.hansen@house.mn,
rep.kate.knuth@house.mn,
rep.john.persell@house.mn,
rep.duane.quam@house.mn,
rep.peggy.scott@house.mn

[ptmorstad]

It is difficult to understand why the voice of a loud few could influence the will of the quiet majority.  The deer hunters from the state of MN, who want to see an older age structure in their buck herd had better get letters out to the appropriate people soon. This bill will go on the floor tomorrow Tuesday, April 5th, 2011 to be voted upon. We could loose any chance of buck managment in MN forever!  Shame on Rep Drazkowski for putting this through.  Where is the science behind this?

[kenhuntin]

There aint much good in eating antlers. Any legislation that tells me what animal to harvest over another is completely out of line. What is good for one is not good for all. I am against legislation and pro information. Do laws stop poaching? Does banning guns stop gun crimes?  It aint right to make a law abiding citizen a criminal because he counted a branch instead of an antler.The less govt. intervention in deer hunting the better off everyone is. Let each man manage his own backyard.

[jkcmj]

+1 kenhuntin

[MnSportsman]

+2 kenhuntin

My family & I hunt for meat.

[deadeye]

"Any legislation that tells me what animal to harvest over another is completely out of line"

So, I guess you think you should be able to shoot hen pheasants,  any deer that comes in your range, any fish currently in the "slot", and the list goes on.  Please explain why you feel the APR is different than the many regulations currently in place that legislate what amimals you can or can not harvest?   

[jkcmj]

The reason this is different, is that it makes hunting all about antler trophies, rather than placing the focus on herd health and the enjoyment of the hunt.  

On my dad's farm, we have been letting small bucks go for a number of years, hoping to improve our chances at a nice mature deer.  My cousin that lives on top the hill, doesn't care.  He wants meat, and to lower the damage to his crops, so he kills whatever he can.  We each make a choice, and that is how it should be.

This is about allowing people to maintain control of their own property, as well as allowing the focus of the hunt to be on families, hunting traditions, and good food for the table, rather than the constant focus on antlers.

This is about the same as the "bear huggers" up north, demanding protection for bears that they feed and pet.... same mentality.  Why don't those who want to destroy property owners rights, and the hunting traditions in our state head over to the Lily page and recruit some help in your cause, I'm sure you will find plenty of people willing to write to the legislature if it means restricting hunting rights and pushing more people out of the woods...in fact I have seen Lynn Rogers comparing this very issue with his own cause on multiple news releases....

[jkcmj]

Ahhh! I am glad to report that the amendment made it through committee this morning and will be in the budget bill intact.  Sometimes common sense prevails despite the big money behind putting  antler point restrictions above family hunting traditions.  A big win for property owners rights!

[MTCOMMER]

ALRIGHT, Sorry for being so naive, but what exactly does this bill do for hunting in Zone 3.....  Another reason I hate gov't, they use wordly explanations to say something easy.

Is this, A buck must have 4 points on one side? or is this totally different?   

Thanks!

[kenhuntin]

"Any legislation that tells me what animal to harvest over another is completely out of line"

So, I guess you think you should be able to shoot hen pheasants,  any deer that comes in your range, any fish currently in the "slot", and the list goes on.  Please explain why you feel the APR is different than the many regulations currently in place that legislate what amimals you can or can not harvest?   

Yes I believe you should be able to harvest hen pheasants. They are a non native invasive specie. Because some goofball came up with and passed slot limits on fish does not make it right to put slot limits accross the board. Slot limits on fish and catch and release fisherman remove and  kill more fish from the ecosystem than conservation minded sportsmen looking for a shorelunch. This is not any legislation about conservation it is about removing a law abiding hunters ability to decide for themselves. Hunting and fishing seasons and more importantly limits were established for the sole purpose of removing the excess population from an environment because it cannot sustain the extra individuals. Seasons and limits should have absolutely nothing to do with useless and damaging slots and regulation.  People better wake up and not stand for this crap anymore.