No more party hunting in Zone 3, SE MN

[PEATMOSS]

Seriously Cody? You really, honestly can't understand how an exponential population explosion would cause a similar spike in trophy animals?

As the population levels out in these states the astronomical spike in trophies is likely to level off as well.

[Getanet]

Very simply put, explain why IA, WI, and IL used to shoot way less and now they are shooting way more?

Well, here's one theory. Each of these states are now littered with hunting preserves that are strictly managed for large whitetail. Get enough of these hunting preserves and you're going to see your B&C/P&Y numbers go up.

Oh sure, there's some cost involved - but what's $5 or 6 grand for the chance at a nice buck?

I'm sure MN's B&C/P&Y numbers would skyrocket too if we strove for large chunks or private land with the best food plots and limited amount of hunting pressure. Then our state could glow red on the map too... If we're going to base our deer management strategy on B&C/P&Y numbers let's go whole hog.

If you don't believe me just Google Buffalo County Hunting and see how many results there are for Buffalo County outfitters. The original B&C/P&Y map came from this link http://www.huntbuffalocounty.com/index.html. It will help explain why so many of these deer are harvested there.

At least that's one theory...

[Jameson]

Minnesota has been having Special Hunts with varying regs for years. The purpose of the varying regs was to see how they effected the deer population and to see how hunters reacted to them. Does anyone know if the data collected from these efforts is public and if so where to find it?

It seems the data from the Special Hunts are not being publicized when a good opportunity is present. Anyone?

[lakevet]

Minnesota has been having Special Hunts with varying regs for years. The purpose of the varying regs was to see how they effected the deer population and to see how hunters reacted to them. Does anyone know if the data collected from these efforts is public and if so where to find it?

It seems the data from the Special Hunts are not being publicized when a good opportunity is present. Anyone?

I suspect the special hunts are primarily the hunters who readily travel to pursue specific opportunities, which is different from hunters who faithfully hunt traditional family hunting grounds. This would skew/bias proposed regs towards those favored by the hunter who readily travels to hunt a specific opportunity vs hunting group/person who hunts the family farm or hunting camp in good deer populations and bad.

lakevet

[LightningBG]

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.

Perhaps my language was too strong in saying they were garbage. My apologies. They are true, the numbers dont lie. The problem comes in the interpretation and what was stressed (the % or x increase from one state to the next). We could have had bigger increases if our previous numbers were just smaller, but that wouldn't have been a positive thing. 2 to 15 is a huge jump as are all of the other states you listed. Ours just wasn't as huge. Why are we comparing ourselves with other states anyways? We're talking about 15 vs 20 deer per year out of how many? Minnesota ranges from 150,000 -290,000 harvested per year (for the past 20 years) Statistically that amounts to almost nothing. (approx 1 in 15,000)

And how does any of this relate to party hunting? WI has had greater increases than us and and increase in general and they party hunt!

[lakevet]

Thanks for persisting in asking the question:

IF PARTY HUNTING AND CROSS TAGGING IS SO DETRIMENTAL TO RAISING MATURE BUCKS, THEN WHY IS IOWA AND WISCONSIN (AND MINNESOTA IN THE PAST) ABLE TO DO IT?????

lakevet

[LightningBG]

Holy shnikies.

I just looked at the total deer harvest for 2009 WI vs. MN

MN harvested approx 194,000

WI harvested approx 329,000

I sure hope there having higher P&Y and B&C numbers with that many more deer in general.

[lakevet]

2009 Iowa deer harvest 136,507.

[96trigger]

Cody,

your number are good, and they are true. However, the other guys are right that you do have to compare the total harvest to have a better understanding of where we are. A better way of determining where we are at would be to compare the number of B&C entries with the number of deer harvested and see who made the most gains. There is a statistical analysis that would let you know if those numbers are significant. But roughly, lets compare Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin. Wi had an increase in B&C entries, but also had a large deer harvest compared to Minnesota and Iowa. Iowa has a smaller deer harvest and still produces more B&C deer. Minnesota, is still producing similar B&C deer numbers that it always has, but the harvest has greatly increased in the past 30 years, we should be seeing similar increases in B&C entries, but we aren't. The lack of increase in B&C entries is not correlating with the increase in population and harvest. Why is that? Because we are shooting too many young bucks, plain and simple. Iowa really is the winner, they are producing more B&C entries with a much smaller harvest.

[lakevet]

while still allowing party hunting and buck cross tagging......

lakevet

[candiru]

From an old book I have these are deer population numbers from 1946

MN - 609,700

WI - 791,000

IA - 2,000

MO - 22,000

KS - zero

IL - 5,100

[Rippinlip]

What about the ability to hunt land, lots of private owned land in this state and others. How would you feel if you were only able to hunt public or small 5-10 acreas pieces of land like some of us do, would you still be pushing for this??

If I owned a chunck of land (eg 40 acres plus), I would be possibilly pushing for the APR or no cross tagging, cause I would have my chances POSSIBLY at a larger buck if that is what I wanted.

Myself I want Venison 1st and a quality buck 2nd.

I have a wall mount of my 1st buck with a bow on the wall (125'ish), I have shot some close to that range during slug season and never shoulder mounted any of them, but we when we slug hunted we all loved the taste of vension, some deer did walk and most of us did choose to let deer walk when we wanted, BUT WE HAD THE CHOICE!!!!!.

Now once your antlered tag is filled you can not pull the trigger on another antlered deer no matter what.

So has anyone confirmed if this pertains to all seasons? Bow & Muzzy too?

[96trigger]

Quote:

What about the ability to hunt land, lots of private owned land in this state and others. How would you feel if you were only able to hunt public or small 5-10 acreas pieces of land like some of us do, would you still be pushing for this??

If this was the case I would be more for changes than ever. 5-10 acres isn't enough land to manage deer on your own. But if the whole state decides to manage for a more mature deer population, the odds of a more mature buck making its way onto that small chunk of land just increased dramatically. The only way it will work to manage your own area is sto happy hundreds of acres of woodland, or get together with the neighbors, unfortunately, neither is very viable. 40 acres isn't enough.

[PEATMOSS]

Cody,

your number are good, and they are true. However, the other guys are right that you do have to compare the total harvest to have a better understanding of where we are. A better way of determining where we are at would be to compare the number of B&C entries with the number of deer harvested and see who made the most gains. There is a statistical analysis that would let you know if those numbers are significant. But roughly, lets compare Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin. Wi had an increase in B&C entries, but also had a large deer harvest compared to Minnesota and Iowa. Iowa has a smaller deer harvest and still produces more B&C deer. Minnesota, is still producing similar B&C deer numbers that it always has, but the harvest has greatly increased in the past 30 years, we should be seeing similar increases in B&C entries, but we aren't. The lack of increase in B&C entries is not correlating with the increase in population and harvest. Why is that? Because we are shooting too many young bucks, plain and simple. Iowa really is the winner, they are producing more B&C entries with a much smaller harvest.

Trigger,

Your side keeps quoting the B&C stats to create this hysteria that we need to criminalize shooting forkies and 6-pointers. IF your side REALLY feels that we need to regain our ranking in the record books, perhaps it's time to examine your sides hunting practices.

It appears as though your party shot four nice "quality" bucks last fall including that 9-pointer you shot(very nice deer by the way). But, just like the forkhorn my brother shot last year, they're all dead and none of these will make the record book.

I'm really curious about your mindset with regards to killing this 9-pointer. Was it your personal best? If not, why did you shoot it? This whole B&C argument you guys keep bringing up seems like a "have your cake and eat it too" situation to me. You use these stats to keep the public land peasants and weekend warriors from shooting forkies and sixers and at the same time, your side is free from any responsibility and can pile up antlered bucks like cordwood so long as they meet your "quality" standard.

IF you're really concerned about our B&C standing, maybe you should be preaching a "shoot your best,leave the rest" ethic amongst yourselves and if you're not willing to do this then perhaps your don't really have the moral authority to use these stats to push your real agenda.

[Bear55]

Today, Iowa has an estimated deer population of around 200,000 deer and a harvest of 100,000 animals.

You have to admit its pretty crazy what Iowa can produce with 1/5th of our deer population.

Like I said before these numbers are just a small sample so they can't be taken too seriously but they do tell a story. To me that story is other stats are doing a better job of producing more mature bucks, you can argue how they are doing it but there is no denying that they have more mature deer. It would be nice is someone could complete a small party of the puzzle and get some numbers for the last 10 years.

[PEATMOSS]

What we have in zone 3 for habitat, nutrition and genetics, Iowa has the same running down both borders. Iowa deer forage on better food for a longer period of the year due to climate. To the best of my knowledge(and I may well be wrong) there is no rifle hunting in Iowa. Most hunting land in Iowa is in private ownership and the hunting cultures and traditions are different there compared to Minnesota in many ways.

In short, we all too often are too quick to give credit or assign blame to the professional game managers working for each states DNR. There are just so many factors and variables which they simply have no control over.

[mrklean]

Doesnt Iowa also have a draw system for their buck tags for res and non res or is it just for non res?

[CodyDawg]

First of all guys, good conversation. Glad to see it hasnt deteriorated like it could.

So now can we move past the numbers and discuss the why?

As far as the outfitters, I kinda think that is a "chicken before the egg" type of deal. They wont show up until the regs and mentality allow for consistent taking of big bucks. The mere absence of outfitters suggests that MN at this point is not capable of consistently producing big bucks. Do we have the potential? Nobody doubts that (I dont think).

I would like to make the point that not all of us supporting this idea are "trophy" hunters (depending on your definition). I think wanting more mature bucks is different than trophy hunting. Trophy hunting to me is wanting to shoot the very biggest of the bucks and not shooting anything else. Trophy hunting is managing for 170?" bucks or bigger. I for one, am not advocating that. I am advocating decreasing the pressure on yearling (in most areas) basket bucks.

[PEATMOSS]

Cody the crux of the issue is that while I and others strongly support your right to speak your mind and to advocate passing on yearling bucks, we don't think criminalizing the shooting of forkies and sixers(for a start) is the way to accomplish this.

Some folks are very happy with a 6-point buck and feel a sense of accomplishment in taking one. How is you imposing your standard on them any different than if Myles Keller forced his standards on you?

[rogrod]

The zones in MN are so vastly different in how deer grow and how they are hunted that this experiment in zone 3 cannot be used as basis for or against the concept of apr. The truth of the matter for most of zone 3 is that if you see a fork or a spike it is either a fawn or is genetically inferior and should be culled. The 4 to a side will not stop many young deer from getting taken because a high number of bucks start off with 4 on a side. If they get passed on because of the rule the first year they have antlers, then the second year they will for sure have enough to be legally shot. That is not the age structure that is supposedly being argued for. If you need a 150 deer around every tree, that will get old soon and then we will need a 175 deer around every tree.

[CodyDawg]

I dont know Miles Keller, so maybe I would like them?

Well here is how I answer that legitimate question:

1. I believe studies have shown that just over half the people want some type of restrictions and quite a bit over half want to see bigger bucks. So if the DNR is listening to its contituents, they are hearing that most folks are heading in this direction. They would be remiss in not listening to them (while responsibly managing the herd).

2. I believe that most folks, when seeing bigger bucks after a time will embrace it. For sure I feel that if they make changes, they better do a good job determing two things: are the changes working and do the hunters like it. And they will. Lou and others know their trade. There is a threat: the legislature steps in and adopts something that wont work and hunters hate and the whole thing goes up in flames. My message here: better to work with the DNR than the politicians.

3. I dont see much of a change to hunters. Does will offer the same opportunity in most of the scenarios thrown around. There will be limited or no opportunity at small bucks but greatly expanded opportunity at big bucks. In terms of total bag limit measured across a zone over time....prolly not a big difference.

4. I dont think it will be an evolution for most hunters into needing a 175 after a few years of 150s. I have harvested quite a few bucks in the 120 to 150 range and I am as thrilled today with a 150 as ever.

5. Herd health. I will admint I dont know the answer to this one. But on the surface, artificially targeting one age group of bucks doesnt feel right. It isnt natural. There are many worms that could surface...and you have prolly heard most of them (breeding by younger/inferior bucks, delayed breeding, etc). Are they right? I dunno and neither does any one. But it sure wont hurt the overall health of the herd to swing a little more to the natural way of things.

6. Party hunting in particular; this wont be that big of a deal and most states dont allow it. Easy place to start.

7. Most folks are adverse to change. The DNR has managed for quantity and is pretty much there. Why not manage for quality? There arent going to be any less deer in the woods under these changes. Wouldnt most....gee, maybe even close to all hunters rather shoot a big buck than a little buck? Throw that out in a survey and what response would you get?

[CodyDawg]

Miles Keller...is he the guy that shot the World Record Buck in Sasakatchewan?

[mrklean]

myles keller is a pro hunter has been around for a long long time

[Coach1310]

Miles Keller...is he the guy that shot the World Record Buck in Sasakatchewan?

Milo Hanson shot the World Record Buck in Sask...

[schmoe147]

I have no problem with the change of no more party hunting. To me deer camp is more about the family tradition and just getting together with friends family, not slaughter every deer you possibly can. Besides You should shoot your deer and be done. If you need to use someone elses tag more than likely yours are already full Stop being greety and selfish. Just my opinion.

[pulleye16]

My question is what does the DNR hope will happen by adopting an antler restriction? Do they want trophy deer or just large bucks, say 8 10 pointers? If all hunters (for the majority of buck tags) are required to shoot 8 pointers (4 on one side), extend the season by two days so hunters can be more selective, how do you grow large deer past that point? I feel people back in the day were hunting more for the meat, shooting basically first come. Hunters probably were not in the woods long enough to stock or take a large dominate buck (which have good breeding genes) and would only do so if luck, and with a few, that was their goal. I'm not a deer expert but just my thoughts. Again, what is the overall goal of this new law? If they want trophy deer(which sounds like they do), get off the rut and shorten the season so hunters won't pass on deer (like they probably did in the 'ol days) giving large dominate bucks a chance to survive; with this law change, now everyones hunting them! Why to maintain Large northerns, does the DNR suggest you release the larger ones and keep the smaller ones? What if we all had to target walleyes over 22 inches only? Wouldn't then the smaller ones grow then under this logic???No need to tear me a new one on my logic, I'll take some education on this though. Do other states offer antler restircion hunts during the rut? How long are thier seasons? whats the deer population to hunter ratio? Thanks!

[LightningBG]

I have no problem with the change of no more party hunting. To me deer camp is more about the family tradition and just getting together with friends family, not slaughter every deer you possibly can. Besides You should shoot your deer and be done. If you need to use someone elses tag more than likely yours are already full Stop being greety and selfish. Just my opinion.

I don't see how people keep going back to the greedy notion? I have a feeling that very few "take" anyone's tag. It's a matter of giving. If I tell John Doe that he's free to shoot a buck on my tag. Who's greedy? The recipient of the gift?

If your buddy picks up a bar tab for the two of you, does that make you greedy? No, it makes you gracious.

[Bear55]

My take on APRs. Most guys who pass young bucks anyway are going to pass the basket 8's no matter what so that will allow some of these 8's to live another year. I am thinking the DNR wants some of the 1.5 bucks to live to be 2.5 before they are fair game. Now a 2.5 year old buck is still a little on the dumb side of things when you compare them to 3.5 and older bucks but they are still more alert and more expereinced then a 1.5 old buck so a greater % of them are going to make it through the season each year which should help grow the overall population of mature bucks.

Now you might argue that many 1.5 year old 8 pointers will get shot and many of the spike and forks have bad genes will be left in the herd. It is true many of the 1.5 year old 8 pointer will get shot but they people shooting those deer were going to shoot them anyway without APR so its kind of a draw there. You might be protecting a few (very few) bucks with poor genes but these bucks could have been born late or the food they were eating wasn't as nutritious as a buck down the road. It has been proven time and time again that you can't predict a bucks genetics by their first set of antlers. There have also been numerous documented studies of spike bucks growing into Booners once they reach maturity.

[LightningBG]

My apologies for the length of this, but it gives some stats relating to the last 10 years (not raw data unfortunately)

First of all, if shooting a Boone and Crockett Club (B&C) caliber buck were as simple as hunting those counties that consistently produce bucks of absurd proportions, you might think more of us would have one by now. For instance, in the past 15 years I’ve hunted four of North America’s top 10 B&C counties—two of them regularly—but I’ve yet to see such a buck, let alone get a shot at one. And make no mistake, these are counties whose B&C heritage is thriving, so much so that they’ve made the club’s top 10 every year for more than a decade.

I even live in one of them. My home county, Waupaca, Wisc., put 17 bucks into B&C’s book from 2000 through 2009, ranking it 10th behind longtime standouts like Wisconsin’s Buffalo County, Texas’ Maverick County and Illinois’ Pike County. Nine Waupaca County Booners fell between 2005 and 2009, tying it for seventh place among the top B&C counties.

But free-ranging B&C-caliber bucks will never be numerous nor easy to find. Even whitetail breeders who utilize high fences can’t crank out clean-antlered B&C bucks, even though they control the bucks’ breeding, weaning and feeding.

The fact remains that few whitetail bucks have the potential and the opportunity to grow antlers meeting the B&C’s minimum record-book scores—160 inches for each triennial “Awards” period and 170 inches for “All-Time” records for typical antlers; and 185 for Awards and 195 All-Time records for non-typical antlers.

Consider the B&C odds in my home county. Waupaca’s nine B&C qualifiers from 2005-09 came from a combined buck harvest of 23,350 bucks during the past five seasons, or one Booner per 2,595 antlered bucks. If boiling maple sap rendered such results, who would bother making syrup?

But deer hunters are optimists when heading for the treestand or ground blind, especially after studying B&C records during the offseason.

And if you have bucks making the B&C book, then you have a lot of bucks being killed that are mature and big, which is really the whole point. Mature bucks in a herd means the herd is well balanced and has good nutrition. Big bucks are not just the stuff of dreams, they also show that a herd is healthy and that hunters are doing a good service for the habitat that helps everything from songbirds to bears.

Here are some reasons why deer hunters should be more optimistic than ever:

■ Whitetails make up 34 percent (1,708) of the 4,987 trophies qualifying for the B&C’s current triennial Big Game Awards; its 27th scoring period.

■ Of the nearly 37,800 entries in B&C’s all-time record books, almost 7,100 (18.75 percent) are typical-antlered whitetails.

■ From 2000 to 2009, hunters registered 4,423 whitetail bucks with B&C, the most recorded by the club in any decade.

■ Those 4,423 trophy bucks from 2000-09 make up nearly 40 percent of all whitetails in the club’s book.

■ That 2000-2009 cohort is a 31 percent increase from the 3,387 B&C whitetails registered in the 1990s.

■ Further, the 1990-99 totals (3,387) were only 17 bucks fewer than all the B&C whitetails recorded prior to 1990 (3,404).

And the increase in big bucks isn’t confined to the Midwest and Texas. Incredibly, B&C entries from the Northeast’s 10 states jumped to 183 in the 2000s, a 37 percent increase from 133 in the 1990s. This includes Rhode Island, which put three bucks into the book after recording none in previous history. And B&C entries from the Southeast’s nine states reached 188 in the 2000s, a 9 percent increase from 173 in the 1990s. The most noticeable changes were Mississippi, which jumped 71 percent to 48 entries. Also, the number shot in Tennessee leapt 150 percent to 25 entries.

Of the top 10 whitetail states in 2000-09, eight increased their entries from 1990-1999, and Indiana made the short list for the first time. Only the province of Saskatchewan saw a decline, though merely by eight bucks. The top states with increases were Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, Kentucky, Ohio, Missouri, Kansas and Minnesota.

Minnesota’s B&C staying power is without peer; it posted increases for six straight decades and never once fell from the top 10. Its 193 entries for 2000-09 placed it 10th on the list. It was No. 9 in the 1990s with 168, No. 1 in the 1980s with 142, No. 1 in the 1970s with 138, No. 1 in the 1960s with 94 and No. 1 in the 1950s with 53.

Wisconsin’s Buffalo County remained the No. 1 county for the third straight decade by placing 44 bucks into B&C in 2000-09. It was also No. 1 in the 1990s with 25 and No. 1 in the 1980s with 14.

Illinois has no equal for B&C non-typicals; it recorded 251 of the 1,637 entries (15 percent) in 2000-09. It was also No. 1 during the 1990s, with 161 of the 1,145 entries (14 percent).

More counties are vying for top honors. Of the top 10 B&C counties in 2000-2009, six were not on the 1990-99 list. Wisconsin’s Buffalo, Iowa’s Allamakee and Illinois’ Pike and Adams counties held their spots. Wisconsin added Trempealeau and Waupaca to the list. Other new counties were Maverick, Texas; Dubuque, Iowa; and Schuyler and Jo Daviess, Ill.

A “Competitive” Top 10

When looking beyond individual counties to state/provincial totals from the 2000s, the larger sample size stabilizes the B&C field. The only change from the 1990s’ top 10 was Indiana bumping out Alberta. Illinois, Wisconsin and Iowa still hold the top three spots; Kentucky, Ohio, Missouri, Kansas, Saskatchewan and Indiana vie for the middle; and Minnesota solidified the 10th spot ahead of Texas and Alberta.

But that stability is anything but static. Keith Balfourd, marketing director of the B&C Club, said, “The states atop the heap just kind of subtly change positions over time, but there’s nothing subtle about their numbers.”

For instance, eight states showed skin-stretching growth for B&C entries in 2000-2009, led by Indiana’s 127 percent increase from 106 to 241, and Ohio’s 101 percent increase from 154 to 309. The other states’ totals grew as follows:

■ Illinois, up 31 percent, 412 to 539

■ Wisconsin, up 59 percent, 292 to 464

■ Kentucky, up 62.5 percent, 192 to 312

■ Missouri, up 53 percent, 186 to 285

■ Kansas, up 48 percent, 174 to 257

■ Minnesota, up 15 percent, 168 to 193

Only Saskatchewan had fewer Booners (256) the past 10 years than in the 1990s (264). Iowa increased from 347 to 349.

Does Size Matter?

The upper Midwest not only dominates in sheer numbers of B&C bucks, it also generates most of the biggest bucks; for instance, 37 of the top 50 typicals of the 2000s came from those top 10 states and provinces; likewise, 42 of the top non-typicals came from there.

One of the great things about B&C bucks, however, is their sheer unpredictability. Consider Maryland and Wisconsin: Maryland has 80 bucks in the B&C’s all-time records, about 7 percent of Wisconsin’s 1,075. During the past decade alone, Wisconsin’s top three counties—Buffalo, Trempealeau and Waupaca—combined to put 80 bucks into the book. Meanwhile, Maryland had been gaining steam; it put 31 bucks into the book during the 2000s—not quite 7 percent of Wisconsin’s 464, but still a serious up-tick.

Likewise, Manitoba fell from Canada’s No. 3 province of the 1990s to No. 5 in the 2000s when its entries dropped from 36 to 20. Ontario took the No. 3 ranking during the past decade with 44 entries, up from No. 6 in the 1990s when it had 16. For size, though, Manitoba placed three typicals and two non-typicals into the top 50.

You get the point. Although the whitetail’s range doesn’t include many of the United States’ 3,141 counties, it almost seems B&C bucks are popping up everywhere. That’s especially true when landowners, hunting clubs or local cooperatives pool their properties, pass up younger bucks, shoot more antlerless deer and carry out habitat-improvement projects to ensure deer have high-quality nutrition and cover.

Dr. Mickey Hellickson, a wildlife biologist, smiled recently when seeing that Union County, Iowa, placed nine bucks in the B&C book during the 2000s. That put Union County in a tie with six other counties for 19th place in North America’s top whitetail counties.

Okay, why was Hellickson smiling? Not only is he an Iowa native, he’s part of a hunting cooperative in Union County that currently covers 4,000 acres but has been as large as 9,000 acres since its 1996 launch. This single cooperative produced six of the county’s nine B&C entries from 2000-09.

“The biggest thing we do is selectively harvest mature bucks,” Hellickson said. “We also do year-round habitat work in the woods, maintain food plots and bring in friends and family members to help with the doe harvest every year. The bottom line is you have to let bucks reach older ages. Whether it’s rugged habitat, selective harvest or restricted access, the only way a buck can make B&C is to avoid a bullet or an arrow for at least four to five years.”

Hellickson said though it takes longer for South Texas bucks to reach such proportions, several make it each year for three reasons. “Maverick, La Salle, Webb, Dimmit and Kleberg all produce B&C bucks because they have large, private ranches with really light hunting pressure,” he said. “About 30-plus percent of the bucks on well-managed ranches reach 51/2 years and older.”

Dr. Joel Helmer, a geographer and whitetail addict at Nebraska’s Concordia University, echoes those thoughts. He created a wall-poster map for the Quality Deer Management Association that shows the distribution of bucks in the Boone and Crockett Club and Pope and Young Club record books.

“Because you’re dealing with such rarities to begin with, it doesn’t take much to influence the record books,” Helmer said. “Most counties cover a large area, but sites that produce record-book bucks are usually relatively small parts of a county with specific habitat and management differences that set them apart. In some cases, it literally can be one family or one group of hunters putting that county on the map.”

With more hunters following herd- and land-management programs that benefit deer, and with the flexible and adaptable whitetail prospering across diverse landscapes, we should expect to keep adding pages to the B&C’s record book in the years ahead.

“More bucks are making the book from New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland and New England than ever before,” Balfourd said.

Hellickson agrees. “Deer hunting is the backbone of hunting in the United States, and it’s now giving people more reasons to connect with the land by managing it for deer.”

[CodyDawg]

"Minnesota’s B&C staying power is without peer; it posted increases for six straight decades and never once fell from the top 10. Its 193 entries for 2000-09 placed it 10th on the list. It was No. 9 in the 1990s with 168, No. 1 in the 1980s with 142, No. 1 in the 1970s with 138, No. 1 in the 1960s with 94 and No. 1 in the 1950s with 53."

Just what we have been talking about. We used to be number 1, now we have gotten passed by 9 other states. Indiana???? We cant produce more B&C bucks than Indiana?