No more party hunting in Zone 3, SE MN

[InTheNorthwoods]

I don't know if anyone ever stops a second to consider this but the reason Wisconsin and Iowa grow so many large deer has nothing to do with legislation, it is good habitat.

Why do you think Minnesota grows more large deer in SE Minnesota but not so much in NW Minnesota. It is the habitat and conditions of the area.

It's not rocket Science, some people just need to realize and accept that they live in Minnesota not Iowa or Wisconsin.

Yeah, NW MN can't grow large deer... Mr. Breen and Mr. Vakoch told me that.

Edit -

The top 3 typicals ever taken in MN have come from NW MN (and 5 of the top 8 - 6 of 8 if you count Itasca County as part of NW MN - its more North Central).

5 of the top 8 non-typicals have come from NW MN, including the top 4. (7 of the top 8 non typicals ever taken in MN have come from NW MN if you include Itasca County as part of NW MN)

[Bear55]

I don't know if anyone ever stops a second to consider this but the reason Wisconsin and Iowa grow so many large deer has nothing to do with legislation, it is good habitat.

Why do you think Minnesota grows more large deer in SE Minnesota but not so much in NW Minnesota. It is the habitat and conditions of the area.

It's not rocket Science, some people just need to realize and accept that they live in Minnesota not Iowa or Wisconsin.

Have you seen some of the big deer that come out of NW Minnesota? There are big buck all over this state, they just need to get a few years under their belt. I've also seen some very large buck in NE Minnesota and many would consider that habitat terrible.

Have a look at this Boone and Crockett map, the Southeast looks a little thin but the rest of the State can produce large bucks if they are given a chance to grow.

[CodyDawg]

I grew up as a hunter in a group that liked to party hunt. I have seen where older, experienced hunters have shot 4 basket racks and others had to quit hunting as their tag was filled. I have seen these racks get thrown in the trash, year after year. I have witnessed 3 of these guys see the light after shooting a big one. They are now firmly on board passing up little bucks. Is my party still a meat hunting party? You bet. But now most of them hunt another couple days and instead of 4-6 baskets, we end up with 3-4 nice bucks. Our hunt is more enjoyable, lasts longer, we get to see more of nature, see more deer activity. However, we still have one in particular that cant seem to keep his finger off the trigger. We have 13 year old boys asking him why he shot that little buck that the boy passed up.....all to no avail. Some mentalities die hard.

The buck I have on my wall is not the biggest racked buck i have shot, but rather the most enjoyable buck I have shot. It wasnt some dumb fork horn that wanders the woods day and night just asking to get shot, but rather a smart, mature buck whom provided a hunting memory like no other. For me that is why I would like to see the bucks' average age increased. the thrill of seeing a mature buck with a mature buck's antlers (not necessarily "trophy" antlers, but just a mature rack).

I hope that it works in SE MN (and it will) and I hope it spreads to the entire state quickly. Both APR and for sure party hunting elimination.

[Bear55]

the Southeast looks a little thin

Whoops meant Southwest! I would however guess that the Southwest can and does produce some nice bucks too if you let them grow up.

[TruthWalleyes]

I grew up in the SW. Last year i decided i'd hunt the first weekend of slug there and then head to SE mn for muzzleloader. The zone i hunted only gave out 10 doe permits....which means that people shoot the first thing with a penis. Pretty hard to let them boys grow up if they are the only thing that is allowed to get shot.

[Rippinlip]

It is what It Is!

I only am concerned about a few things.

Did you happen to see the polls in the 1st post, it was around 50% that wanted the change, what about the 50% that didn't?

Was it more to do with serving the community groups like WDHA and Bluff County Whitetails? They seemed to be the ones that had the most publicity mentioned by Lou in previous articles.

Personally it does not affect me at this point anymore because I only hunt Zone 3 on an occassion with some friends.

I just can see this growing more laws, we all see it everyday in life, "hey we got this, not lets push for that"

Mark my words. This will not be the end of more controlling laws for Whitetails in this state......

[96trigger]

Rippin, I don't think there will be a windfall of new laws. I can see the rest of the state going this way if, and only if, this is successful in SEMN. The word will spread, it will take probably 4-5 years for this to truly take hold, and then it can be determined if it works or not. If it doesn't, I am not to stubborn to admit that I am wrong.

As for Wisconsin, I have a brother that lives in Trempeleau county, he sells feed in all over western Wisconsin. Nobody is happy about how they are managing their deer population. I was in the Door county Penninsula last week. We chartered a salmon fishing boat. The captain and his first mate were not happy at all with the deer hunting all the way out there. The habitat in SEMN and in Western Wisconsin are very similar and both grow large deer. Minnesota is a vast and diverse state in terms of habitat. The management in one area, might not be viable for another. I wouldnt have a clue how to hunt in the northwoods. I need crop fields and bluffs to feel like I know what I am doing. I'm hoping that this works. I am very optimistic.

There was pressure from MDHA and Bluff Country Whitetails, but that pressure was warranted. If you go back and look at the zone 3 survey, it was more than 50% of the population that wanted some kind of change and It was a large sample size that took the survey. I was not a member of any organization until this year, and I am a member because I went to one of their banquets, but I have been pro some kind of change long before joining an organization. There are plenty of people that don't belong to the organization and were pro change. Many of my students are already practicing deer management. I saw a few of them in the weightroom on Monday. They were excited about the changes, even though they were not going to get any of the youth benefits as they were all older than 15. Whether we older guys like or not, the younger generation has a voice, and if we didn't make the change, I am confident that they would have. It was only a matter of time. Our DNR does a nice job. Lou even came and talked to the kids in our school. Not about the regs at all, but about what it takes to manage the big game population. It was pretty eye opening all the science and data that goes into it. These guys are throwing darts at dart boards to see what should and should not be done. They do their homework whether we realize it or not.

[lakevet]

Minnesota is a vast and diverse state in terms of habitat. The management in one area, might not be viable for another. I wouldnt have a clue how to hunt in the northwoods. I need crop fields and bluffs to feel like I know what I am doing.

This is a significant piece of the puzzle. When I first went down to cities to go to college, I quickly met fellow hunters from southeastern Minnesota. Their stories of sitting on stand and seeing 20-30 deer in the first few hours of season were unbelievable to a kid who grew up hunting Northern Minnesota with different habitat, harsher winters and timber wolves. Some hunting seasons our group of 10-12 hunters saw fewer deer hunting hard for 2 weeks in Northern Minnesota than my friends saw in a few hours by themselves! I also had to explain to one friend what a spike was because every buck he had seen had at least a fork to a small basket.

These differences influence one's opinion on deer management and hunting regulations.

lakevet

[lakevet]

.

Have a look at this Boone and Crockett map, the Southeast looks a little thin but the rest of the State can produce large bucks if they are given a chance to grow.

Look at the party hunting cross tagging states of Minnesota, Wisconsin and Iowa. Boy they sure don't put bucks into the book like the other states that ban that outdated practice. Red, orange and yellow mean no book bucks right?

Did you hear that Minnesota is banning cross tagging? I hear they are following Missouri research and want to be like Missouri. Missouri really jumps out on the map, doesn't it. Modern Minnesotans finally realized they can't do what previous generations of Minnesota hunters and DNR game managers did and what Wisconsin and Iowa are doing today. Producing lots of mature bucks while letting families enjoy their tradition of party hunting and cross tagging. Hunting the rut is smart though. Don't tell Wisconsin or Iowa or they will hunt the rut too and pass us up!

lakevet

[96trigger]

Does Missouri jump out at me? Actually it does. Look at the data from 1830 to 1979 very few BC whitetails. The last 30 years are seeing more entries. I wonder what the map would look like if we included through 2010. Missouri at least is seeing growth, Minnesota has been stable if not in the decline. That to me, is the big difference.

What kind of stock would you buy, won that is seeing growth, or one that has been the same for the last 30 years. I know what I'd buy.

One last thing to note, party hunting is not illegal, you just have to tag your own buck, you can shoot as many does as you and your party can tag. I know where some of you hunt, you might be lucky to see a doe in the same afternoon. In some places in Minnesota, it is a bad afternoon if you only see one deer. I don't want to make it sound like we have herds of deer either. When I say see a deer, it might be 200 to 300 yards away in a field, but at least you saw one.

[PEATMOSS]

What data do you have that actually shows Mn. stable or declning? Is the number of B&C entries what you are basing your assertion that we have a "problem" with our herd management?

[96trigger]

Look at the map, it shows very clearly that we are stable whereas Iowa, Missouri, and certainly Illinois had increases in B&C entries. I am not going to look up the exact numbers to prove a point that won't change your mind anyway.

I also never said we have a management problem. We managed for population in SEMN, now the population is stable to where they want it, now instead of managing FOR population, its time to manage THE population.

[Musky Buck]

When you ask a group how'd it go you get 7 for 11 or we filled out etc. I used to agree with party hunting but we had a 2 day season and no muzzy season, the 9 day is crippling my area as it can't catch up to the pressure being placed on the deer. I never dreamt I'd have 25 gun days in high pressured areas resulting in less deer sightings than what I'd see during shooting hours in a 2 day season. Times have changed.

[PEATMOSS]

The map and the figures cited by bear 55 in a different thread show that Mn has produced as many Booners between 1980 and 2001 as we had in all the previous 150 years that records had been kept. Yet your side seems bent on promoting this idea that there are no big bucks around. This seems deceptive to me, that's why I asked if you had any more recent figures that actually show some sort of decline.

[Bear55]

PEAT you have to look at the overall population of the whitetails across the country to see why the first 150 years were so slow. I don't know anyone who said we don't have any large bucks, but looking at numbers from 1980 to 2001 its pretty clear to see we are the only state to produce less BC bucks from 80 to 2001 while every other state excluding Texas has made huge gains. That tells me they are doing something right that we are not. I remember another thread a year back that said MN shot more 1.5 year old bucks then any other state, that sounds about right if you look at the numbers.

State............1830-2001.......1830-1979.......1980-2001

1.Iowa...........615.............108.............507

2.Minnesota....608.............315.............293

3.Wisconsin.....589.............194.............395

4.Illinois.........552.............43..............509

5.Texas..........316.............157.............159

6.Missouri.......285.............41..............244

7.Kentucky.....279.............37..............242

8.Kansas........255.............20..............235

9.Ohio...........235.............36..............199

10Michigan.....155.............55..............100

[PEATMOSS]

Did it ever occur to anyone that prior to 1980, all of your little pet states(Iowa, Illinois, Kansas) all had negligable deer populations relative to Mn? Seriously, there just weren't any appreciable amount of deer to shoot in these states!!!

In the 70's and before, big ag was booming. There was fenceline to fenceline tillage everywhere in these states. It wasn't until the farm crisis of the early eighties and the advent of CRP as we know it today that there was habitat to support the large populations we see today. None of these states has, or ever has had APR's.

[CodyDawg]

I know that my dad has told me many times that it was something if someone saw a whitetail in central mn, so it wasnt like we had an overflowing population either.

You can argue the "why" but there is not argument that MN was a better mature buck state than others and has since fallen way down the charts.

[PEATMOSS]

I can't argue with "my dad said" logic, but...

From 1830-1979, Mn produced about 300 Booners. That's about 2/year.

From 1980-2001, Mn produced about 300 Booners. That's about 15/year.

What am I missing?

[LightningBG]

What kind of stock would you buy, won that is seeing growth, or one that has been the same for the last 30 years. I know what I'd buy.

I hate to respond with another question, but...

What kind of stock would you rather be given/inherit? one that is seeing growth or one that has been high for the last 30 years?

I'd take the stable high value one.

[lichen fox]

I think that should clarify things Peat...and as for dealing with what dad or grandpa said logic...Prior to the introduction to "bucks only" season's in Minnesota, (and probably other states too), in the 80's, the majority of deer hunter's were just after some venison to help feed thier family...there were very few, what we would deem today, "trophy hunters"...

But, in the meantime, a whole generation of deer hunters grew into the sport only being able to shoot bucks in many cases...that mentality has grown and now alot of hunters will only shoot "mature bucks"...some won't even take a doe if given the chance...We now have a very large number of hunters who only hunt "trophy bucks"...or at least that's how they would like to be viewed by thier peers..."Back in the day"...our father's, grandfather's and great-grandfather's hunted more for food than horns...and I'll bet there were some big bucks harvested and the antlers never even made it out of the skinning shed...I'm lucky to be able to hunt in the area that I do... we "see" plenty of mature bucks every year...some dandy's...but we don't ever get them all...we are lucky to get one or two true trophy's a season between 16 hunters...that's just the way it works...

[Bear55]

I hate to respond with another question, but...

What kind of stock would you rather be given/inherit? one that is seeing growth or one that has been high for the last 30 years?

I'd take the stable high value one.

A lot of people are buying stock in SE MN right now, should be some good hunting this season and even better down the road.

On a personal note I wouldn't mind inheriting some blue chip Iowa farmland stock at any time. I also have a high risk speculative position in MN, hoping that "some day" the hunters in my group see the benefits of letting the little guys grow up. Some of these have seen the light but rest will need some time.

[nonteepical]

I can't argue with "my dad said" logic, but...

From 1830-1979, Mn produced about 300 Booners. That's about 2/year.

From 1980-2001, Mn produced about 300 Booners. That's about 15/year.

What am I missing?

a doubled/ tripled deer population

[CodyDawg]

Well Peatmoss,

Since you didnt even list a source, tell me how you know that other states had neglible deer populations and then please show me how MN was so different. MN even closed the deer season in the 70s, right? Doesnt sound like there was many around that year. As for what you are missing?

MN 2/yr then 15/yr....your numbers. Lets look at the other states which you conveniently didnt inlcude (and correct the MN numbers):

MN 2.1/yr to 13.9/yr or an increase of 6.6 times the original number

IA 0.72/yr to 24/yr or an increase of 33.3 times

WI 1.3/yr to 18.8/yr or an increase of 14.4 times

IL 0.3/yr to 24.2/yr or an increase of 80.7 times

MO 0.28/yr to 11.6 or an increase of 41.4 times.

Gee, which number sticks out on that list? All the other states are seeing double digit increases in entries per year and MN is not. We used to dominate, now we are in last place in terms of increase and all but Misery shoot more per year. Again, there is no denying that MN was once the big buck king and now we are second fiddle. Go ahead and argue the why, but you just cant argue the numbers.

[LightningBG]

MN 2/yr then 15/yr....your numbers. Lets look at the other states which you conveniently didnt inlcude (and correct the MN numbers):

MN 2.1/yr to 13.9/yr or an increase of 6.6 times the original number

IA 0.72/yr to 24/yr or an increase of 33.3 times

WI 1.3/yr to 18.8/yr or an increase of 14.4 times

IL 0.3/yr to 24.2/yr or an increase of 80.7 times

MO 0.28/yr to 11.6 or an increase of 41.4 times.

Gee, which number sticks out on that list? All the other states are seeing double digit increases in entries per year and MN is not. We used to dominate, now we are in last place in terms of increase and all but Misery shoot more per year. Again, there is no denying that MN was once the big buck king and now we are second fiddle. Go ahead and argue the why, but you just cant argue the numbers.

Those statistics you conjured up are garbage. I'm sorry but they are.

Bob makes $1000 week at work and gets a raise of $250, a 25% increase to 1250/wk

Joe makes $100 a week at work and gets a raise of $100, a 100% increase to $200/wk

Looks like Juan is the big winner right? Silly.

[PEATMOSS]

Well Peatmoss,

Since you didnt even list a source, tell me how you know that other states had neglible deer populations and then please show me how MN was so different. MN even closed the deer season in the 70s, right? Doesnt sound like there was many around that year. As for what you are missing?

MN 2/yr then 15/yr....your numbers. Lets look at the other states which you conveniently didnt inlcude (and correct the MN numbers):

MN 2.1/yr to 13.9/yr or an increase of 6.6 times the original number

IA 0.72/yr to 24/yr or an increase of 33.3 times

WI 1.3/yr to 18.8/yr or an increase of 14.4 times

IL 0.3/yr to 24.2/yr or an increase of 80.7 times

MO 0.28/yr to 11.6 or an increase of 41.4 times.

Gee, which number sticks out on that list? All the other states are seeing double digit increases in entries per year and MN is not. We used to dominate, now we are in last place in terms of increase and all but Misery shoot more per year. Again, there is no denying that MN was once the big buck king and now we are second fiddle. Go ahead and argue the why, but you just cant argue the numbers.

Obviously, I have some strong opinions on this subject. Unlike alot of others, I have been trying to keep an open mind and do some homework on the subject.

Iowa, for instance had almost no deer at the turn of the 20th century. In 1936 the population was estimated at only 500-700 animals in the entire state. In 1950, the population had risen to an estimated 10,000 deer statewide and a season was held with a harvest of 4,000 animals. Today, Iowa has an estimated deer population of around 200,000 deer and a harvest of 100,000 animals. All of this information is available on the Iowa DNR website. I have not been able to pin down the numbers from Kansas and Illinois, but I'm working on it. All of these states had similar agricultural practices and I'm going to be very surprised if the numbers don't show a significant population explosion, particularly starting in the mid eighties.

[nonteepical]

Juan IS the big winner, they're shooting nice bucks in mexico! Joe is also a big winner he just doubled his current lifestyle and bob might be lucky to go deer hunting for a week with a 25% increase. (knowing his wife)

[LightningBG]

Juan IS the big winner, they're shooting nice bucks in mexico! Joe is also a big winner he just doubled his current lifestyle and bob might be lucky to go deer hunting for a week with a 25% increase. (knowing his wife)

My mistake. Joe is Juan, or Juan is Joe, either way, they were supposed to be the same name.

Point being, just because you have a big increase doesn't mean your better of than someone who was better off to begin with.

(for some reason it wouldn't let me edit the original post)

BTW - Juan now works for Polaris.

[Coach1310]

The other issue here..... IF it works as well as most folks hope it will in SE MN, do you think the amount of land available to the average Joe will be the same???? You may end up with bigger bucks and more of them, BUT it will turn into the Iowa/Illinois land grab scenario if it works as well as many hope.... Some of those "we have been hunting the Johnson farm for years.." will turn into... "we hunted the Johnson farm for years, until they sold/leased..."

[CodyDawg]

Well Lightning, just because you dont understand them doesnt make them garbage. I very clearly showed that 3 states (IA, IL, WI) went from shooting way less to shooting way more per year. I also included a factor to illustrate just how drastically other states have gotten bigger and minnesota has not (comparatively). Peatmoss is the one who stated that MN going from 2 to 15 was a huge jump and in fact it is not when compared to other states. You cant just call statistics garbage if they do not support your position. I also included MO, which although took a bigger jump percentagewise, is still slightly under MN in terms of actual numbers shot. I included this even though it does not completely support my position...you have to take the good with the bad with stats.

Very simply put, explain why IA, WI, and IL used to shoot way less and now they are shooting way more? The stats dont lie, they used to shoot less, now they shoot more. you cannot deny that. As i have continually stated, you can argue the why, you CANNOT argue that it is true.

[nonteepical]

that is a legitimate concern but we have to get to that point first, it's a ways off.