Antler Point Restrictions

[Bear55]

Private land owners are the key words Bear, not state mandated restrictions. How will the state enforce these restrictions? Where is that funding going to come from? Are you willing to increase your license fee's to cover these increases in enforcement? From 25 bucks to $250, and you can only hunt one season and take one deer?

I have posted on other similar posts and there is no state bordering Minnesota that has the QDM/AR/what ever you want to call it, that many on here are speaking in favor of. After at least 2 months of reading posts like this and similar to it I recognize there are areas of the state with a low number of deer, and I am not sure what to think of age structure yet, but there are other considerations to take into account here like the economic impact having a bigger population of bigger deer will have. Namely crop damage and vehicle accidents.

If you are truly serious about this, then why are you not proposing a moritorium on all buck deer hunting for at least 3 years. Not likely? Well how about this: No one, ABSOLUTELY NO ONE hunts from the last weekend of october until the 2nd weekend in December. Protect the rut and you will see the bigger buck numbers increase.

This has been a civil topic and I commend all who have been posting on this, lets keep it up..............

I'm really not in favor of AR but if I have to choose between AR or nothing I would take AR every time because even if its just for a few years it might be the shot in the arm this state needs to get the mentality of our neighbors and grow bigger bucks. I was simply using the Hillview Management site as an example that things can work. It doesn't matter if its private or public land, I'm sure before they started QDM they shot a bunch of little bucks too. The fact is QDM works for them and it could work in any area of the state.

The state can enforce any new laws just as they do now, a CO learning a new law and enforcing it is not expensive. Certainly you would admit that some laws we have on the books now are not easily enforcable? Does that mean we should take them off the books?

In the end I am in favor of change, be that small or large, I have suggested a buck lotto in the past so I would certainly be willing to sacrifice on my end to help get our age structure a little older. What really needs to happen is a change in mentality in our hunting. Wisconsin and Iowa seem to have the mentality to let the little bucks grow, we simply do not. If changing the laws will help change the mentality of the hunters in this state then I say go for it.

[picksbigwagon]

I see your points Bear, and I agree to a certain extent. I would rather see no one hunting those weeks of the rut, especially firearm, but just to be fair, I think No one should at those times.....New laws I am not always in favor of and I tend to be pesemistic (I know I spelled that one wrong) when it comes to new laws or ideas to fix things. That is just my personality and my burden to bear (no pun intended)

I am heading to Iowa next fall, mainly because with 3 young kids at home, my wife doesn't appreciate the 9 day season of 3B like I do. So I will be meat hunting next December in the first gun season in Iowa. Expensive for a doe tag? Yes, but what it saves me in family time is worth it I feel.

[archerystud]

Originally Posted By: archerystud

...Take the following scenario: A mature buck, small buck, and a 1.5 year old doe are standing in front of a hunter....

Take the following scenario: Two grocery bags of meat and a large set of antlers, One grocery bag of meat and a small set of antlers, and just a single grocery bag of meat without any antlers are in three separate piles. Which one do I want to take home with my one tag? Might not even be allowed to take the doe home.

...just another way to look at things....

so everyone would like to shoot bigger deer, yep makes sense to me. How do we get bigger deer again? Oh yeah, let them get older. This was the point I was trying to prove.

[skee0025]

If this has so much support why not offer a License tailored to it. Make it 10 bucks cheaper and allow it to take a Doe or a buck larger than X points per side. I think many would go for it simply due to the fact that they could save a dollar or two and still hunt deer. You dont mandate Antler point restrictions but it would have the same effect. Any thoughts?

[Big Dave2]

Getanet is dead on.

I understand if you hunt up in the North woods and don't see many deer that you want to shoot. But I also think there are far less hunters up there per huntable acre.

Where I hunt in So MN there are a lot of fields then the woods are broken up into small 20's and 40's which are full of hunters. A deer (especially a small buck during the rut) just doesn't have enough cover to make it to 3.5 years old.

I would like to see some small change to at least get more 2.5 year old bucks in the area I hunt. I have hunted in managed areas and we will NOT see a big buck behind EVERY tree. It won't happen and I laugh at people that say that. I don't need to see mega bucks just a few more in the 120-130 inch scoring range would be nice.

Or maybe we should accept that each area of the state has different capabilities for growing big bucks. The southeast corner of the state seems to be doing quite well even though those hunters in that area have to abide by the same rules as up north or western minnesota.

Just because you buy a 4o acre wood plot does not mean that it will be overflowing with large deer. And if it is not overflowing with large deer, it is not the states responsibility to give you large deer.

Would you expect a duck slough or small local lake to hold the same size and numbers of walleye as Mille Lacs or Lake of the woods? Some areas have better habitat than others.

[archerystud]

Would you expect a duck slough or small local lake to hold the same size and numbers of walleye as Mille Lacs or Lake of the woods? Some areas have better habitat than others.

Ahh another good point thanks BD2.

I remember going to Mille Lacs as a kid and limiting out on walleyes with my dad. In those days there were not such a thing as slot limits. However, to protect the fishery slot limits have been imposed to improve age structure of the lake. We should do something similar to the deer in the state to improve the age structure.

[picksbigwagon]

we can't fish during certain times of the year due to spawning, so Maybe No one gets to hunt during the rut?

[Bear55]

If this has so much support why not offer a License tailored to it. Make it 10 bucks cheaper and allow it to take a Doe or a buck larger than X points per side. I think many would go for it simply due to the fact that they could save a dollar or two and still hunt deer. You dont mandate Antler point restrictions but it would have the same effect. Any thoughts?

I would buy into something like this, not that I think it would work but it would be intersting to see how many people buy the license.

Also for those who say if enough people support it we shouldn't need any legislation. I know a lot of hunters who would like to try QDM but feel they can't because their neighbors will blast anything they pass up. So they feel they have to shoot or end up with nothing, its probably like this all over the state.

[archerystud]

I would buy into something like this, not that I think it would work but it would be intersting to see how many people buy the license.

Also for those who say if enough people support it we shouldn't need any legislation. I know a lot of hunters who would like to try QDM but feel they can't because their neighbors will blast anything they pass up. So they feel they have to shoot or end up with nothing, its probably like this all over the state.

Agreed

[Big Dave2]

Originally Posted By: Big Dave2

Would you expect a duck slough or small local lake to hold the same size and numbers of walleye as Mille Lacs or Lake of the woods? Some areas have better habitat than others.

Ahh another good point thanks BD2.

I remember going to Mille Lacs as a kid and limiting out on walleyes with my dad. In those days there were not such a thing as slot limits. However, to protect the fishery slot limits have been imposed to improve age structure of the lake. We should do something similar to the deer in the state to improve the age structure.

Are slot limits really imposed to improve age structure of a lake? I would say they are imposed to protect the breeding females and improve overall population.

[archerystud]

Then why is there a minimum size on the slot limit? This isn't protecting any of the large breeding females.

[BobT]

Originally Posted By: BobT

Originally Posted By: Bear55

Or if you are in it for the meat why not just start a deer farm and raise your own venison. Just think you could hand feed them corn and massage the deer like they do with that kobe beef. You'd have all the meat you would need.

There's a rather significant cost difference between buying a camera and buying a tract of land, paying the annual taxes, buying the feed, obtaining the proper permits, etc. Your rebuttal was a bit off the mark.

Perhaps since what you're after is mature bucks I'll throw it right back at you. You buy the land, permits, feed/seed, pay the taxes, fence it in to protect your investment, and grow the herd to meet your personal specifications. Hey, I have another idea. You could control your herd and even cover some of the cost by selling hunting opportunities on your private preserve and turn your passion into a business to boot!

OR

You could just visit an already established preserve right now.

Bob

Quote:

I'm a fair chase hunter so I don't believe in high fences. I was just putting a spin on your first rediculous post. [/quote']

Personally, I take offense to your statement that my post was ridiculous. I don't think it was.

Proponents of antler restrictions are more interested in decorating their walls than they are in the health of the herd. Antlers are not the sole means to determining herd health any more than our fingernails or teeth to determine our health. Certain areas of our state will never produce large racks simply because the food sources are not conducive to providing the right nutrients or the genetics of the resident herd just aren't right. Incidentally, both of these factors along with others are needed to produce the racks spoken of.

As ridiculous as you may feel my comments are, I could feel that yours are self-serving. You don't want to hunt a fenced in herd and so if you had your way, you'd force everyone else to hunt your way.

The whitetail deer herd is healthier and larger than in any recorded time in history and people talk like they are on the brink of extinction. They are so populous in fact that in combination with our human expansion, they are actually becoming a nuisance in many suburbs around the state.

Whitetail deer have also proven themselves to be one of the most intelligent and adaptive of all quarries we hunt. Maybe the reason some of us aren't seeing the trophy opportunities we think we should is because our expectations are grossly exaggerated and the deer have actually become smarter than we are.

We have debated the idea that gray wolves (timer wolf) are getting smart about humans. Doesn't it seem likely that the whitetail deer is doing likewise?

They are out there but they have learned to avoid us.

Bob

[PEATMOSS]

Originally Posted By: Bear55

I would buy into something like this, not that I think it would work but it would be intersting to see how many people buy the license.

Also for those who say if enough people support it we shouldn't need any legislation. I know a lot of hunters who would like to try QDM but feel they can't because their neighbors will blast anything they pass up. So they feel they have to shoot or end up with nothing, its probably like this all over the state.

Agreed

I do not buy into this line of reasoning at all.Seriously, do we let others actions determine our own ethics?

My favorite walley lake has no slot, yet I never harvest anything over 20". Ever. I often see others bring in some bigger walleyes, but I know what I believe is right and act accordingly. If someone feels they have to shoot something so that others won't, then I truly question the power of their convictions.

Again, my point remains, if this antler thing is the direction most hunters want to go, then it will evolve that way just like largemouth bass.

[Bear55]

Personally, I take offense to your statement that my post was ridiculous. I don't think it was.

Proponents of antler restrictions are more interested in decorating their walls than they are in the health of the herd. Antlers are not the sole means to determining herd health any more than our fingernails or teeth to determine our health. Certain areas of our state will never produce large racks simply because the food sources are not conducive to providing the right nutrients or the genetics of the resident herd just aren't right. Incidentally, both of these factors along with others are needed to produce the racks spoken of.

As ridiculous as you may feel my comments are, I could feel that yours are self-serving. You don't want to hunt a fenced in herd and so if you had your way, you'd force everyone else to hunt your way.

The whitetail deer herd is healthier and larger than in any recorded time in history and people talk like they are on the brink of extinction. They are so populous in fact that in combination with our human expansion, they are actually becoming a nuisance in many suburbs around the state.

Whitetail deer have also proven themselves to be one of the most intelligent and adaptive of all quarries we hunt. Maybe the reason some of us aren't seeing the trophy opportunities we think we should is because our expectations are grossly exaggerated and the deer have actually become smarter than we are.

We have debated the idea that gray wolves (timer wolf) are getting smart about humans. Doesn't it seem likely that the whitetail deer is doing likewise?

They are out there but they have learned to avoid us.

Bob

You basically told all of us who hunt big bucks to quit hunting and pick up cameras, I found it rediculous, if you take offence to that its fine with me.

I feel a health population of deer would have a natural buck/doe ratio of 1/1. I think any biologist would agree with me. If you feel the man made buck/doe population we have now is fine, that is your opinion, just don't expect the rest of us to believe it.

[Bear55]

Originally Posted By: archerystud

Originally Posted By: Bear55

I would buy into something like this, not that I think it would work but it would be intersting to see how many people buy the license.

Also for those who say if enough people support it we shouldn't need any legislation. I know a lot of hunters who would like to try QDM but feel they can't because their neighbors will blast anything they pass up. So they feel they have to shoot or end up with nothing, its probably like this all over the state.

Agreed

I do not buy into this line of reasoning at all.Seriously, do we let others actions determine our own ethics?

My favorite walley lake has no slot, yet I never harvest anything over 20". Ever. I often see others bring in some bigger walleyes, but I know what I believe is right and act accordingly. If someone feels they have to shoot something so that others won't, then I truly question the power of their convictions.

Again, my point remains, if this antler thing is the direction most hunters want to go, then it will evolve that way just like largemouth bass.

But when you throw that walleye back the guy in the boat next to you doesn't have that great of a chance of catching that fish. When someone passes up a young buck rifle season the chances of that deer making it are not good, a lot of the time they hear a shot not long after the deer heads over the ridge, its happened to me plently of times.

I don't really understand their line of reasoning either, but I have talked to many people that think that way so its not uncommon.

[BuckKiller]

we can't fish during certain times of the year due to spawning, so Maybe No one gets to hunt during the rut?

how is that related?

[picksbigwagon]

it protects those fish when they are vulnerable, why not protect the bucks, isn't that what you want?

[Musky Buck]

I often hear about how other states don't hunt the rut, but 9 out of 10 deer hunting shows I watch usually one of the first things mentioned is the bucks are starting to chase the does around and none of these shows are filmed in MN. I don't think the rut is going to wake some people up so they won't shoot so many yearling bucks, heck I don't have a problem really with anyone taking a little buck, I'd like to see the guys that shoot 4 or 5 of them to decide enough is enough. Like my uncle who does that, I'd rather have him put my cousin's in "his" deer stand so they could get a crack at one rather than him filling their tags. If we move the rifle hunt back, won't we then start talking about how people with food sources to hunt have an unfair advantage because later hunt means colder temps means bucks recharging there fat reserves ?

[Musky Buck]

Giving AR a bit more thought, I think our locker plants/ deer processors probably have a fairly good idea of what they are seeing buck wise. The one I go to says in the past years he says they are having way fewer mature bucks brought in. I said is it because so many people process there own, he said we usually have roughly the same number of deer brought in each year, but the size of the animals has gotten smaller and way fewer decent bucks. He said the number of legit 200 pound bucks has really tanked. I think before AR is a go there needs to be no buck party hunting or cross tagging, I know that is a tough one to enforce, but that should be the first shot at helping some bucks make it through the season. When I think about a deer drive with AR, that would be a tough one because we usually want the deerless people to post, lots of times that's younger hunters or older hunters and if an adult has to sit with a younger hunter to make sure they don't take a 6 pter, well we'd run out of drivers.

[vister]

if we could get more people involved in QDM like the Aho's at hillview in north central MN, we'd have a state full of huge bucks. They have a 1000 dollar payout to the biggest doe. And not just at their hunt camp, but anyone who registers. They also don't take too kindly to shooting young bucks, as you would see by looking at their pictures.

Unfortunately, not most of us are doctors who can afford to buy thousands of acres of conjoined land. But they have got the neighbors all involved with what they do, and if your serious about QDM, try doing the same with yours.

[BobT]

Originally Posted By: BobT

Personally, I take offense to your statement that my post was ridiculous. I don't think it was.

Proponents of antler restrictions are more interested in decorating their walls than they are in the health of the herd. Antlers are not the sole means to determining herd health any more than our fingernails or teeth to determine our health. Certain areas of our state will never produce large racks simply because the food sources are not conducive to providing the right nutrients or the genetics of the resident herd just aren't right. Incidentally, both of these factors along with others are needed to produce the racks spoken of.

As ridiculous as you may feel my comments are, I could feel that yours are self-serving. You don't want to hunt a fenced in herd and so if you had your way, you'd force everyone else to hunt your way.

The whitetail deer herd is healthier and larger than in any recorded time in history and people talk like they are on the brink of extinction. They are so populous in fact that in combination with our human expansion, they are actually becoming a nuisance in many suburbs around the state.

Whitetail deer have also proven themselves to be one of the most intelligent and adaptive of all quarries we hunt. Maybe the reason some of us aren't seeing the trophy opportunities we think we should is because our expectations are grossly exaggerated and the deer have actually become smarter than we are.

We have debated the idea that gray wolves (timer wolf) are getting smart about humans. Doesn't it seem likely that the whitetail deer is doing likewise?

They are out there but they have learned to avoid us.

Bob

You basically told all of us who hunt big bucks to quit hunting and pick up cameras, I found it rediculous, if you take offence to that its fine with me.

I feel a health population of deer would have a natural buck/doe ratio of 1/1. I think any biologist would agree with me. If you feel the man made buck/doe population we have now is fine, that is your opinion, just don't expect the rest of us to believe it.

I’m sorry, that’s not what I said. I replied to comments implying that we should be required to take does and let the bucks walk to promote seeing more large bucks. If I recall correctly, the comments tried to liken it to C&R fishing and like many of the threads in this discussion was also leaning toward the idea that large racks equals healthy deer. Rack size has nothing to do with deer herd health. The opposite, maybe.

I said, if the only purpose for pushing this idea is to see larger bucks then visit a preserve where it already exists and you can see all the large bucks you want, even if they are artificially produced through controlled genetics, predation control, food plots, and the like. If we think we can turn our wild deer population into some kind of utopia I'm afraid we are sadly living in a dream world. That is not likely to happen or possibly not even possible in todays Minnesota with the human sprawl. Personally, I think we are right now as close to a utopia as we can get.

Whether or not the ideal buck:doe ratio is 1:1 is also questionable. Oh sure, biologists could be found that would back this claim just as there are those that would refute it but natural selection would prove reality. Unfortunately, to make that happen we would have to take the human element out of the equasion and give the entire state back to the wildlife or would we? Aren't we also a factor in the equasion? After all, we too are predators.

For me, just like a wolf or other predator, I hunt deer because I enjoy the meat. Okay, as an emotional human I also enjoy the challenge of the hunt but putting the heads of my kills on a trophy wall doesn't appeal to me. That is not to say that I wouldn’t get a thrill if a bruiser happens my way but I don’t live and hunt specifically for the trohpy and I don’t feel it is fair for anyone else to force me to do so any more than it would be for me to deny trophy hunters the same privilege by passing laws restricting us to take small deer and does.

Bob

[slopmaster]

This is a tough subject. I have never shot a big buck but someday would like too. I usually shoot does instead of young bucks in hope to someday shoot that brusier. But everyone around my area shoots little bucks and to be honest it doesnt make me mad because they have a right to shoot what they want. In some ways i'd like to see more QDM but that again is what I want not what everyone wants around me. I think in my area alot of people would truly loose the passion if they could not shoot anything they wanted. For them its a family get together and they make drives all day and shoot for meat (which i have done my fair share of) and just to enjoy the great outdoors, they do not care about horn size (although they seem to be alot more excited when they shoot a nice one). We cant please everyone and to be honest i have no idea what the answer is. One thing i do know is if you want to shoot a big buck set your own guidlines. practice QDM. Make your own AR. I will put money on it that not EVERY little buck gets shot and if you pass him up maybe someday in the future you will get your shot at him. Do what you want to do, but as for the whole state turning to these practices i kind of have my doubts. Only time will tell i guess. regardless of how you look at it i wish ya the best of luck next year and shoot what will make you happy. every animal should be considered a trophy

[vister]

why is it that the state has antler point restrictions on some of its public land in MN? Is the DNR already using this as a way to see if in fact over time these restrictions do in fact help have a healthier deer herd? I'll bet in time the racks on these properties get bigger.

As far as the meat hunters go, I tend to see more does and yearlings out and about than small bucks anyways. But hey, i could care less if you shoot the first deer that goes by and its a basket 8. Thats your choice and right.

But for the chance of a lifetime at a buck of a lifetime means not taking your safety off the rifle and letting him go. Not only next year will he have bigger horns, but he'll also be a bigger deer with MORE meat than this year to put in the freezer!

[picksbigwagon]

BobT, that is a great post, thank you

[Musky Buck]

Hey Vister, I got nuthin' but when I read your posts you got somethin. All this AR stuff is ideas of how MN can grow larger more mature bucks, leave other states out of this and also youth and elderly hunters. Some tried the fish slot comparison etc. This is more about changing a cycle in our state where we are recycling yearling bucks year after year and pressuring our herd more than it's ever been pressured before. In the 80's we set records as far as license sales.But, we had no early doe hunts,zone 4 was 2 or 4 day seasons with no muzzleloading for us rifle guys, bow season was shorter I think, our states population and city expansion was less. I wonder why deer seem more nocturnal ? Seems to be making more sense. I just wish more people would let the small guy go, makes you feel good about releasing him, and then it becomes easier and easier and he might have a chance to get older, wiser, heavier, and breed at 2 1/2, then having the smarts a bit he might see his 3rd birthday. Ask your deer processor this. Are you processing bigger deer today vs. bigger deer of years past. Are you processing more,less, or about the same mature bucks as years past ? What % of processed bucks would you guess are 1 1/2, 2 1/2, and 3 1/2 or up?

[Musky Buck]

It's kinda silly. Here we are, many of us already have or do let them go/grow, we are helping lots of hunters bag that little guy by us passing on him. We are trying to talk some into growing state wide bigger bucks. I like the shed post, huge set and people are all wow etc. That's what can happen if they can get older, they get bigger. I'm not saying QDM can work everywhere although I wish people would try. The Hillview group, seems to be working, if they are disgruntled any of them I wish they'd speak up, doesn't seem to be the case. There is no doubt the bucks you see on their website were most definitely passed on when they were inferior. 82% of polled hunters, I think that was the number, wanted to see larger bucks. Well, then lets do something about it and step 1 is we have x number of yearling bucks around each year, how do we harvest less of them so more can reach maturity ?

[CSTPETER]

The way I see it, we currently have a management program that does absolutely nothing to encourage the non harvest of yearling bucks. Zero, Nada. In the spectrum of Deer management we are completely skewed to the quantity side. On the other end, Way down there,(you might need binoculars to see it) is the total quality side. I don't think anyone here is advocating a complete change in management philosophy, but we are going to need to find a more balanced approach if we are going to try to satisfy the Deer hunting consumer in this state. Is APR the way to go? I don't know, but we need to try something. Let's face it, times are changing whether we like it or not. A lot of us learned how to hunt from previous generations that actually needed the meat. Deer hunting wasn't something done for enjoyment but out of a real need to feed the family. You could say I've come full circle. When I started hunting with my Grandpa and Great Uncles, when you saw a deer, any deer, you better darn well shoot it. It may have taken three generations, but I just don't feel the same sense of urgency that they did. I'd rather see one mature buck than a hundred yearlings. I think it's a change that's taking place throughout the state. You can blame it on Lee and Tiffany if you want too, but it's also a cultural shift. My bottom line is that We need these changes if we are going to keep future generations interested in hunting here. The product We offer now is outdated.

[vister]

Hey Musky, have a comparison for you. Others can chime in if they want to. But, Musky and I have a few things in common. One, I'm guessing we don't live too far apart from each other. Two, Both ourselves and our party have harvested state record book deer in the past 5 years. Hmmm...I'm guessing that is because of the QDM practice done by a lot of the hunters in our neck of the woods.

This whole antler point restriction topic should more or less be ignored by people who just hunt for the meat. Cause if you don't care about antler size, then this topic means nothing to you.

[james_walleye]

Sorry BobT but a healthy deer herd doesnt have a harvest where over 85% of the bucks are yearlings. A healthy deer herd has a much higher percentage of mature bucks in it than MN does.

Its also very obvious you have never seen QDM at work if you think the state of MN is as close to "utopia" as can be.

Every part of our state would produce "trophy bucks", but in most parts of the state the only thing that keeps them from getting there is they can't get past 1 1/2 years old. The whole state of MN, just as the rest of the midwest has genetics 2nd to none.

I'd like to see something, anywhere, that says the MN deer herd is healthy. Its quite the opposite, numbers don't make a deer herd healthy. And now in many parts of the state, we don't even have the numbers much less mature bucks.....

[Big Dave2]

This whole antler point restriction topic should more or less be ignored by people who just hunt for the meat. Cause if you don't care about antler size, then this topic means nothing to you.

But if I ignore it then you guys will push a bunch of legislation unopposed that I am not in favor of.