No more party hunting in Zone 3, SE MN

[mabr]

. Stephen Demarais, professor of Wildlife Management at Mississippi State University, concurs with Castle's opinion. After intensive monitoring of buck kill on the state's Sunflower WMA, his statistics show a decrease of 19 inches of antlers in the Boone and Crockett scores of 3 1/2-year-old bucks taken on the WMA since the 4-point rule was adopted. This is exactly the effect that some biologists predicted: Over time, the restrictive rule protects smaller-antlered yearlings and allows the harvest of larger-antlered yearlings.

Arkansas repoted the same thing, a decrease in antler size

And where's those bucks at? It's been awhile so those 7 yo mature deer should be piling up by now.

PSE, My best guess is this could happen if you have hunters who oppose the APR in the areas where they are being managed. BUT the majority who pushed for this will not be shooting those basket rack 8s. These hunters understand that these buck need to be protected in order to grow the true trophy's or booners as your example calls them. I think peer presure from the hunters in zone 3 will go a long ways and prevent the harvest of these bucks.

I could be wrong but that would be my prediction.

[psepuncher]

Mabr you'll appreciate this as it's not a snipit. You're right about basket racks. But you leave out hunters who are limited on time to tag any deer. Along with many other variables you left out.

The apr's in Arkansas are not born from yesterday's news. Although the apr's were implemented from a push promoting apr's as a big benifactor for QDM.

In 1994, the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission enacted an antler restriction in the form of a 3-point rule (a buck must have at least 3 points on one side, including the tip of the main beam, to be legal), which was applied at selected state wildlife management areas. That singular act is important, because it was the first step ever taken by our state game agency that was designed strictly to promote and improve buck quality.

Then, in 1997, a group known as the Arkansas County Deer Management Association lobbied for and received a special area designation to operate under the same 3-point guideline that had been instituted three years earlier on the WMAs. Even though this move was brought about primarily by an individual group wanting a different type of management philosophy in their specific area, their interest in promoting better quality and bigger bucks set the stage for other, more sweeping changes in the future.

Interest in bigger deer grew by leaps and bounds from that point. Soon other hunters from different areas questioned the commissioners about enacting similar guidelines in their areas. To gauge how much interest was actually out there, a statewide survey was conducted in the early spring of 1998 to determine just how many hunters were really interested in this "new" approach to deer management. It probably surprised everyone concerned when over 70 percent of those polled stated that they favored "quality" deer management, with the preferred tool being some form of antler restriction.

With the input from that survey certainly playing a major role in their decision, in April of that year the AGFC commissioners voted into effect a statewide 3-point rule. At the same time they initiated vastly increased doe harvests - again, pretty much on a statewide basis. Both of those measures were viewed, by both the general public and the commissioners themselves, as being the beginning of a comprehensive quality deer management plan.

"For decades, deer management in this state has been done with a hammer," Hugh stated. "What I mean by that is that any and all guidelines and rules established have been pretty much done on a statewide basis. But it is ridiculous to try to manage whitetails in the mountains of the Ozarks the same way they are managed in the southern flatlands. The same with the delta and the Ouachitas. Each of those regions is far different from the others, with specific needs and specific problems that must be addressed on a site-specific basis. The present system simply cannot work."

He went on to say that "everyone involved needs to understand that antler restrictions, including the so-called 3-point rule, are not the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. What they are is one step in the right direction. They are designed to quickly push a lot of bucks into an older age bracket, and, in conjunction with other methods, including doe harvest, the can produce dramatic results in a fairly short period of time. They are not, in themselves, a long-term management plan."

Hugh Durham is now the ex-director of the AGFC.

So where does that leave us? At this point we have a statewide antler restriction - now in its fifth year of existence - and a lot of questions concerning the effects of doe kill, particularly in the mountain regions. As previously stated, overall deer kill has decreased by some 40 percent over the past two seasons, and now the AGFC is fielding increasingly tough questions about its plans for the future from an ever-growing segment of the state's estimated 300,000 deer hunters.

IS THE 3-POINT RULE WORKING AGAINST US?

At their April meeting, the AGFC commissioners voted to reduce season lengths drastically and to curtail doe harvest in many zones. How much those changes were based on sound management principles and how much they were a result of public outcry is open to debate.

There are two things that I find vaguely disturbing at this point. First, as nearly as I can determine (several AGFC biologists were asked to respond and refused), there are no plans to modify the 3-point restriction.

"Antler restrictions are not cure-alls for bad genetics or poor food source," says Larry Castle, deer program coordinator for the state of Mississippi. "Mississippi currently has a 4-point restriction statewide. In some areas we have seen substantial improvement, in others none at all. Generally, our concern is that we may be degrading future deer populations by the continued removal of the 'better' [larger-antlered] members of the yearling age-class."

Stephen Demarais, professor of Wildlife Management at Mississippi State University, concurs with Castle's opinion. After intensive monitoring of buck kill on the state's Sunflower WMA, his statistics show a decrease of 19 inches of antlers in the Boone and Crockett scores of 3 1/2-year-old bucks taken on the WMA since the 4-point rule was adopted. This is exactly the effect that some biologists predicted: Over time, the restrictive rule protects smaller-antlered yearlings and allows the harvest of larger-antlered yearlings.

A Mississippi State University graduate student named Bronson Strickland has recently produced (in association with Demarais, Castle and others) a widely read paper titled "Effects of Selective-Harvest Strategies on White-Tailed Deer Antler Size." The study used antler measurements from pen-raised deer to simulate the effects of antler-based selective-harvest strategies on the breeding population for a number of years. Those findings were then compared to antler statistics from bucks harvested on Mississippi's WMAs. The simulations showed that selectively removing a large proportion of the larger-antlered young bucks while leaving a large proportion of the smaller-antlered young bucks can reduce the antler size of bucks, beginning at 4 years of age.

The 3-point rule has now been in use for five years here in Arkansas. Are we on the verge of seeing antler size beginning to decrease?

Catherine Helm is one of the prime forces behind the annual Arkansas Big Buck Classic, one of the nation's largest deer shows. She is directly involved with the event's highly popular statewide big buck contest.

"When the 3-point rule first went into effect we saw an immediate and dramatic increase in antler size of the bucks entered in our contest," Helm stated. "But in the last couple of years that trend has leveled off and maybe even decreased a little bit."

Those comments, by someone who annually sees a majority of the state's largest bucks, certainly seems to correlate with the opinions mentioned above.

The second thing I find disturbing is that for the coming season the commissioners have gone to a three-deer limit in many zones. In those areas, a hunter can legally harvest two bucks while taking only one doe.

On the surface that lower antlerless harvest would seem to be good, since most biologists agree that the statewide doe harvest implemented in 1998 has had an adverse effect on deer numbers, particularly in the mountains. So at this point, taking one doe in all areas except the south would seem to be prudent.

But for years we hunters have been told that the heavy doe harvest was necessary to bring our buck-to-doe ratios into balance. Indeed, that is true in a healthy herd, and for many years we heard that our buck-to-doe ratio was far out of kilter and was a major problem that must be cured. Whether we've killed too many does or not, today that ratio is certainly closer to being at that magical 1:1 point than at any time in my life.

A RUDDERLESS SHIP?

So why are we now going to return to the old days, by taking two bucks for every doe? Could this undo all that we've worked for?

[mabr]

Should make for an intresting couple years thats for sure. Its a good read and Im glad you posted it. Im not a biologist thats for sure. But I do do alot of reading and have hunted many states with and without all these changes were talking about. As I said previously the DNR has alot to consider with the vast differences in our state and how they manage those areas.

I hope that peer pressure works, and people use common sense and understand what this is trying to achieve. I already stated, I worry about the over harvest of does, I can forsee this being a problem here.

As for the guy that doesnt hunt much, He'll have his chance for a Doe from everything I've read about the areas this will be in effect. I know thats not the answer all want to hear but that small buck he had to pass on will be there for him next year and most likely will be legal then.

And for the record. If APR fails, Ill be the first one to admit it. I have no problem with that. I originally suggested on here for width vs. points but most didnt like that idea, I also would have liked to the see the gun season pushed out to december and that was for sure a no no with most. So I'll have settle for APR. But with education and peer pressure I still think it(apr) will work.

[11-87]

On our 300 acre zone 341 we always would let groups go out and hunt, most would take buck or doe. mainly hunt for fun, and some good meat.

Here's the deal.. with apr.. I don't think we'll be letting others go out until my family and a couple close personal friends have the chance to take theirs first. and I'm sure there will be alot more guys with the same views..

[psepuncher]

By the way good neighbor,

We used to own & operate a resort in Norfork Arkansas.

Most prestine country just south of Missouri.

I cut my teeth there hunting deer with hounds.

As for the limited hunter, they can get a guided hunt too.

Should never have to come to that situation, but I'm sure the public land will get thined out pretty quick.

[11-87]

Ok, Here's a REAL QUESTION, and I would like to here on this as long as we are talking ZONE3.

A 11yr or younger can shoot a deer on his Dad/Mom tag. Do they then have to follow the APR?

I know a 12-17 can shoot and not follow these guidelines.

Personally I don't like kids shooting who haven't yet gone through TRAINING.

Also, just curious.. how many Minnesota guys here read the Outdoor NEWS????

Did anyone notice all the 8,9,10,11 yr olds that "Shot" their First turkey?? What's the deal with that. I would take my kids hunting, but.. never shoot...

Think about this.. they shoot a 25# bird, or a 12pt. buck at 10 or 11, (The animal of a lifetime)What do they next have to look forward to???

[mabr]

I cut my teeth there hunting deer with hounds.

Surely your not condoning hunting with dogs here in MN are you neighbor? We need to get together PSE, im serious. Id like to compare notes sometime. I'll take youy fishing and put you on some of the best Bass fishing you could imagine.

[11-87]

the ROCHESTER POST BULLETINS TAKE ON THIS, and the COMMENTS THAT FOLLOWED. LOOKS like More are Against this than For it..

Eric Atherton: In 15 months, we'll be seeing bigger bucks in Zone 3

6/25/2010 11:30:07 PM

Comments (23)

Bluffland Whitetails Association President Gary Bartsch is one of a handful of hunters who, for the past decade, have tried to persuade the Minnesota DNR, other hunters and even a journalist or two that it was time to dramatically change the way we hunt deer in southeastern Minnesota.

He and his group, which now has about 1,000 members, contend that our region isn't living up to its potential in terms of producing mature whitetail bucks. Their argument is essentially this: We have the land, topography, climate, food and deer genetics to rival Iowa and Illinois in terms of producing big deer, but our hunting regulations have created a culture in which young bucks have little chance of seeing their second birthdays.

Last week, that all changed — and Bartsch and his friends at BWA have plenty to celebrate. The DNR officially announced an end to cross-tagging for bucks and the creation of antler-point restrictions for all adult deer hunters in Zone 3. To be legal, a buck must have four points or more on one side of its rack. The new rules apply regardless of whether you're carrying a slug gun, bow or muzzleloader.

"We've been working on this for 13 years," Bartsch told me on Monday. "We're talking about thousands of hours of effort by hundreds of people. To have this work out the way it did — well, it's really satisfying."

Keep in mind that BWA isn't getting everything it wanted. The group's idea has always been to move the firearms season back a week or two, to get it out of the rut, when young bucks are most vulnerable. DNR big-game coordinator Lou Cornicelli has firmly maintained his opposition to such a move.

BWA resisted the urge to do a legislative end-run around the DNR, as some other organizations have done. The decision to show patience and work with the state's wildlife managers has paid off, and although antler-point restrictions aren't the strategy BWA advocated, the group is thrilled to see that something is being done to protect immature bucks.

"This is the first significant change since the early 1970s," Bartsch said. "We'll be in full support of the DNR on this, and I absolutely I believe this is going to work out even better than what people are hoping for."

I suspect he's right, but that doesn't mean the upcoming deer season won't be bumpy. Although a recent survey found that slightly more than half of hunters in Zone 3 favored a change in the rules, there still are thousands of deer hunters who won't like the idea of the DNR "telling them what they can and can't shoot." And if these new rules function the way they're supposed to, the buck harvest will be down substantially this year.

That will be a tough pill to swallow for hunters who are accustomed to tagging an antlered deer every year.

But this is a one-year sacrifice that's worth making. I'd compare it to a decision my father-in-law is about to make. He's a retired farmer who has an incredible talent for growing every kind of vegetable imaginable, and for years his asparagus patch has been incredible.

This spring, however, its production down a bit and wasn't of great quality. When I visited the farm two weeks ago, Merv said it might be time to plow up the patch and start over. That will mean a year or two when asparagus will be in short supply, but it's a sacrifice he's willing to make.

The way I see it, we're at a similar place with southeastern Minnesota's deer herd — we have plenty of deer, but the quality isn't what it could be. And, after years of studies, surveys, public meetings and private discussions with various stakeholders, the DNR finally decided that to plow under the old rules and start over.

Change is difficult, and old habits die hard. But now that the rules are actually in place, I hope every hunter will make every effort to abide by them.

And really, will it be so bad to have to take a good look at your buck before you pull the trigger? I expect that if we all have to calm down, count points and take our time, we might be less likely to rush the shot and end up trailing a wounded buck through the neighboring county.

Antler-point restrictions have worked well in Pennsylvania. They've been a huge success in Missouri. And small-scale experiments in Minnesota state parks have shown encouraging results.

I don't expect everyone to like the new rules, but starting in September, we're all going to have to give them a chance.

Comments

There are 23 comments - Hide All Comments

RedHorse

Preston, MN

Posted on 6/26/2010 at 7:31:35 AM

YOU ARE CORRECT IN STATING THAT NOT EVERYONE IS HAPPY ABOUT THE CHANGES. I FOR ONE AM CONSIDERING NOT PURCHASING A LICENSE FOR THE 1ST TIME IN 46 YEARS. I THINK IT “STINKS!.”

WHAT IS NEXT, TURKEYS MUST HAVE AT LEAST A 12 INCH BEARD, SQUIRRELS MUST BE CHEWING ON A NUT BEFORE SHOOTING? THIS NEW RULE IS FOR A SELECT FEW, AND AGAIN IT “STINKS!”

YOU WANT BIG BUCKS, THEN MOVE THE SEASON INTO DECEMBER AFTER THE RUT. PERIOD.

Report comment as inappropriate

Woodchopp

er

rochester, mn

Posted on 6/26/2010 at 12:50:08 PM

yea!! and what are they going to do with all the unclaimed dead deer left in the woods??

Just another way for the Do Nothing Resources to get some more FINE MONEY!!

Report comment as inappropriate

Wideeyes

Rochester, MN

Posted on 6/27/2010 at 7:52:39 PM

It is about time, The DNR is right this time, if you can’t count don’t go deer hunting, Red horse, we will not miss you or your 15.00. Woodchopper is dead wrong also, the woods are not going to be full of unclaimed deer, what kind of people do you hunt with WC. Get with it, stay home or get a nice ticket.

Southeast Minnesota will be better than it has ever been in a couple of short years.

Report comment as inappropriate

Haag1

Rochester, MN

Posted on 6/28/2010 at 7:28:34 AM

I really hope the specialty groups know what they are doing.

Hopefully this area doesn’t become the next IA and all the land around here gets locked out by landowners even more than it already is.

Report comment as inappropriate

RedHorse

Preston, MN

Posted on 6/28/2010 at 4:41:17 PM

wideeyes, i am very well aware that hunting is a privilege and not a right. not only have i hunted deer for 45 plus years, i have also been a fas instructor for 25 plus years. i remember well the 3 day season and if you saw a deer it was a successful season. but this is ridiculous and strictly set up for a select group.

as per your request, i will stay out of the woods this fall. not sure what the 15.00 refers to, and maybe it is you who cannot count. i have a masters degree in education and count quite well.

i’m sure i am not the only meat hunter who will take offense to this bogus rule!

Report comment as inappropriate

MWmn

rochester, mn

Posted on 6/30/2010 at 4:53:15 PM

RedHorse… the woods are full of meat. Start harvesting a doe every year instead. If you don’t care about a quality buck don’t shoot them at all.

Report comment as inappropriate

mldenney

Byron, MN

Posted on 6/30/2010 at 11:59:39 PM

As a meat hunter myself I would much rather shoot a 2 1/2 year old (or older) buck than a 1 1/2 year old. There’s ALOT more meat and it’s just as tasty. I welcome this change!

Report comment as inappropriate

Haag1

Rochester, MN

Posted on 7/1/2010 at 7:46:33 AM

The “special groups” are pretty well-known.

You know, the one’s that get up early to watch Micheal Waddel and have bought into the marketing of deer hunting that shooting a trophy buck is the only way to hunt and is a passion and obsession.

For some hunters it is a scramble to get permission, hunt for a few days during gun season, and hopefully get lucky enough to even see a deer let alone one that has the “legal” points. Please don’t tell me that there are plenty of doe’s, which there are, but sometimes the deer patterns change from year to year thus affecting hunters success.

After a couple of years of no success by “everyday hunters” (primarily gun), there will be a drop in license sales not only by the hunter, but by the hunters friends and children.

But let’s be realistic, this is probably what the buck slobs want anyways.

Make sure to send your pictures to Outdoor News!

Report comment as inappropriate

Wideeyes

Rochester, MN

Posted on 7/1/2010 at 8:24:46 AM

redhorse,

What select group are you talking about. You are the one tossing the masters degree around, no wonder you added a class war comment like “select Group” What select group are you referring to. There is none, You are just trying to make this a rich poor issue, There are no rich poor regulation Just horn size. The 15.00 I mentioned is your tag fee and no one will miss you or the other so called meat hunters who want to shoot anything that moves.

Drop the I’m entitled tude and wake up, My friends that support this are regular people that don’t have Master degrees or govt pensions. They work hard for a living and want to improve on this great gift with good common sense managment.

Report comment as inappropriate

prohibiti

on_harms

Oronoco, MN

Posted on 7/1/2010 at 8:38:28 AM

I wonder what those guys will do when they shoot a cow. Oh wait they can still shoot does. Oh good they still have an excuse for shooting people and cows.

Report comment as inappropriate

Wideeyes

Rochester, MN

Posted on 7/1/2010 at 3:27:10 PM

Michael who,

Again what special group are you speaking of, You are stirring up some kind of Fake class warfare on this issue.

Do you want to know about special groups, look at the clown who made special laws for his lake ( ie state Democrats)

My friends who have hunted for over 30-40-50 years all want this new rule. And quess what we are all Not Rich, We work hard for a meager living and this is a ray of sunshine.

YOU ARE ALL WRONG IF YOU THINK THIS HAS ANY THING TO DO WITH SPECIAL GROUPS.

Again tell me where it says you will not be allowed in the woods.

Oh wait are you afraid that a landowned may be compensated for there land in the form of hunting lease. our taxes have gone thru the roof and everyone wants to hunt and bring meat home for no cost to them.

this will bring much needed revenue to rural areas of southeast minn and the demand for hunting will go up bigtime

Report comment as inappropriate

JMS

Smalltown, MN

Posted on 7/1/2010 at 6:43:58 PM

DNR = Department of Needless Results.

Report comment as inappropriate

Dogg1

NYFB, MN

Posted on 7/1/2010 at 6:59:29 PM

Some poeple are dense. The special groups he is talking about are the whiny babies who cry every year they never get to shoot a huge buck to hang on their wall.

Some people actually hunt for BETTER reasons then to see if they can shoot something worth mounting. But I guess the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

Report comment as inappropriate

MINNshoot

er

SE, MN

Posted on 7/1/2010 at 8:56:50 PM

Step one for BWA is complete, antler point restriction. Next it will be moving the gun hunt out of the rut. They are a very patient group, one step at a time.

Report comment as inappropriate

Haag1

Rochester, MN

Posted on 7/1/2010 at 11:00:27 PM

“Oh wait are you afraid that a landowned may be compensated for there land in the form of hunting lease. our taxes have gone thru the roof and everyone wants to hunt and bring meat home for no cost to them.

this will bring much needed revenue to rural areas of southeast minn and the demand for hunting will go up bigtime.”

Exactly as I had thought. Landowners, or should I say non-rich landowners feel that they are being taken advantage of by deer hunters and the properties next to them. If that’s the case, don’t let people hunt your land, and charge them x-amount a day for pete’s sake.

And to quote the democrap fisherman as an example is no different than landowners wanting “special regulations” for horn hunters to boost their property sales or their soon-to-be outfitter.

You just proved what specialty groups are. BTW I am for a point restriction, and would probably support a gun season out of the rut. I am just worried that because of these “new laws” proposed by a small minority of people (ie; specialty groups), a larger majority will not be exposed to the hunting tradition we were “all” raised doing.

Report comment as inappropriate

deerslaye

r

Southeast, Mn

Posted on 7/2/2010 at 9:39:07 AM

All this talk of ‘bigger’ bucks is a bunch of [PoorWordUsage]! One only need to look at Pennsylvania statistics to see what will really happen. They have had APR since 2002, and here are the facts:

1.) Hunter success rates did NOT change.

2.) Buck kill rates did NOT change.

3.) Trophy buck kill rates remained the SAME.

4.) The kill rate for 2.5 year old bucks went up over 30%.

The simple fact is, there are NOT bigger bucks running around in Pennsylvania! the only thing that changed, is that hunters killed 2.5 year old deer instead of 1.5 year old deer! Big whoopee!!!

Another thing that is happening in Pennsylvania, is there are reports that big trophy bucks are actually declining, because more hunters ‘have’ to hold out for an APR buck. The person that used to be satisfied with a little forky, now is forced to sit around for a much larger buck.

For all you QDM and Bluffland lovers.....be careful of what you ask for!!!

Report comment as inappropriate

jzee

rochester, MN

Posted on 7/2/2010 at 9:46:04 AM

The mention of the asparagus made me think the deer ate it.

Varmints is what they are. Tasty lil critters though!

Report comment as inappropriate

mldenney

Byron, MN

Posted on 7/2/2010 at 11:54:01 AM

Here’s an article on the success of the Pennsylvania APR that went into effect in 2002. Looks pretty promising to me. http://www.lhup.edu/smarvel/seminar/fall_2004/miles_2/pa.htm

“In conclusion, mismanagement over the past century has led to an overpopulation of deer in Pennsylvania. As a result of the deer overpopulation, the forest ecosystem has been degraded. In addition, management in the past has encouraged deer hunters to shoot more bucks than does leading to an inadequate adult doe to buck ratio and ultimately an unhealthy deer herd in Pennsylvania. Antler restrictions that required hunters to harvest only bucks with either three or four points on one antler along with increasing doe licenses and implementing concurrent buck and doe seasons were put in place to combat the past mismanagement of the deer herd. The most extensive research of wildlife was launched to monitor the restrictions and new regulations. Over 2,000 deer were captured from two counties and radio tagged to allow researchers to monitor their survival along with various other aspects. Research has indicated that antler restrictions are doing exactly what they were supposed to do and that was to allow yearling bucks to survive in order to grow larger racks and gain a healthy breeding ecology. The harvest of does has increased by 65 percent while the harvest of yearling bucks has dropped from 85 percent to 57 percent. Many skeptics of the game commissions new regulations seem to be coming around and are currently in favor of the restrictions that were put in place. Research about deer movement and survival will continue being documented until the end of the 2004 hunting season on the remaining radio tagged deer. However, the game commission will continue to monitor bucks into the 2005 hunting season and beyond. The game commission expects to gain more insight of buck survival and the health of the deer herd throughout the remaining months of this year and beyond.”

Report comment as inappropriate

deerslaye

r

Southeast, Mn

Posted on 7/2/2010 at 12:01:54 PM

Try picking an article that is a little more current then six years old. I’ll say it again, the only thing APR does, is shift the killing of 1.5 year old bucks to 2.5 year old bucks. let’s see...do I want 60” buck, or a 90” buck....yippee, whohoo! If you think there are going to be more 140“+ bucks running around after APR implementation, you are SADLY mistaken.

Report comment as inappropriate

mldenney

Byron, MN

Posted on 7/2/2010 at 9:27:32 PM

Deerslayer,

Feel free to post any article that disputes the one I posted.

I did search some more, and one thing bad in PA is the extreme hunting pressure; too many hunters for the number of deer available. You mock the shift from 60” to 90”. For me that’s a moot point, as I’m not a trophy hunter. I see 140lb field dressed compared to 180lb field dressed, and that means more meat in the freezer. It’s no different than having a size restriction on fish.

Actually it is different since deer get much smarter as they get older, so the odds of them living beyond 2.5 years is better with APR.

Obviously if all the 2.5 year olds get shot like most of the 1.5’s do, then all we’ve gained is more meat in the freezer. Again, fine by me.

Report comment as inappropriate

Jack_Spar

row

Winona, mn

Posted on 7/6/2010 at 6:36:08 AM

Way to go BWA, the start of ruining hunting for the average person. I think it’s time to cut the DNR in half if they have enough money to start managing for trophy bucks.

I also think it’s time to cut archery season down to two 9-day seasons in December. BWA wants the deer hunt after the RUT, then bow hunters should have to hunt after the rut first. Never start an experiment with your biggest group of people, start with the smallest group as it’ll make the smallest impact when it screws up.

I’m also curious where BWA’s 1000 members come from. Their tax forms state they have less than 300 paying members. And why the is our DNR listening to special interest groups like BWA, rather than listening to the public who are getting extremely angry with the DNR and their stupid new regulations?

Report comment as inappropriate

maxx

Rochester, MN

Posted on 7/6/2010 at 10:45:06 AM

DNR just wrecked the hunting season for thousands of hunters, I am not a trophy hunter, I hunt to put meat on the table.

Report comment as inappropriate

Jack_Spar

row

Winona, mn

Posted on 7/6/2010 at 3:54:16 PM

Maxx, the horn hunters of the world will ask “why don’t you just shoot a doe then?”.

In 15 months we won’t be seeing bigger bucks, but we will be seeing more bucks without brow tines, because those genetically inferior 6-pointers are all we have that aren’t 8-point or bigger. There’s very few bucks that don’t have 4 on a side their first year, at least in 346 and 349. In fact, I haven’t seen more than two or three bucks in the past 10 years that didn’t have 4 points on one side.

That little weasel Lou needs to quit using the failed plans from other states to try to manage Minnesota’s deer herd. We’re a completely different type of people than anywhere else in the country. In general, Minnesotans don’t brag about their trophies, they just humbly go about their yearly hunt, hoping that big boy will come by, and if he doesn’t, Minnesotans understand that it’s not a big deal.

Rather than forcing these stupid regulations down our throats against public opinion, why not try educating hunters that this is the way you want it done. If they don’t want to do it, so be it. If they don’t believe the misinformation the DNR has been using, good for them. The vast majority of hunters in zone 3 are already doing some sort of management on their own, whether it be antler point restrictions, body size, apparent age, or taking does first. Let them continue doing their own management practices, they’re working very well already (just look at the pictures in the outdoor news each week)

Report comment as inappropriate

[mnsports]

The best way to increase the age & quality of bucks is to move the gun season off of the rut.

[Jameson]

If that is truly what we are after, not hunting them at all for a few years would be best. Still would have to shoot some does to potentially increase the quality of the bucks. But if we are just talking bucks, and not deer, the best way to increase the age and quality would be to not shoot any bucks, just enough does to keep the overall population in check.

[Red Cabin]

I agree,

[Gopher_Guy]

The best way to increase the age & quality of bucks is to move the gun season off of the rut.

This is the correct answer. Push the gun season in zone 3 back to the time Iowa's starts and you're in business.

Last year I finally drew an Iowa tag. Of course with my luck it was the first year they jacked the price of the tag up. I had enough points to draw so I just was like well I will go and that will be it. I can't justify that price in the future, as I can go on a nice Montana trip for what I spent in Iowa to hunt deer. But, that's another story.

Anyhow, I was hunting just 10 minutes over the MN border past Harmony. In 1 week of WARM hunting I saw more big bucks than I have seen in probably my entire life of hunting in Minnesota (near Winona). It could have been even better had the weather cooperated. Did I suddenly become this great hunter? No, of course not. I just happened to be in an area that does not let their stupid little bucks get blasted because their gun season is a full month after peak rut. Oh, did I mention that 90% of the time in Iowa I was on public ground and for the most part none of it was land I had scouted? Man, did I have fun.

I applaud the DNR for FINALLY doing something, but their efforts would have been better received by just pushing back the dates of the gun seasons 2-3 weeks.

[Ebiz]

I doubt that will ever happen, follow the money.... I know there are alot of MN people who also hunt the WI season and I would imagine there are also alot of WI people who also hunt in MN. Move the season to the same time and lose out on the non-resident license fees.

[Gopher_Guy]

Correct, but if they moved the season like Zone 3 to when Iowa's season starts (first weekend in Dec) it would be a non-issue. The land characteristics of Iowa and SE MN are practically identical. The problem is MN has tended to manage the entire herd like the state is the same all over. northern MN is vastly different than SW MN which is vastly different than SE MN.

There are very few hunters in MN who can hunt Iowa year to year (due to the cost and limited draw), unlike NR hunting in WI.

[11-87]

First they got the apr's... now they want to[Note from admin: Please read forum policy before posting again. Thank you.]with some tradition.. and move the hunt!!..

Why not move it to every other year then!!

maybe they should put weight restrictions out too ... so we can't shoot a deer under 150#

[Coach1310]

Correct, but if they moved the season like Zone 3 to when Iowa's season starts (first weekend in Dec) it would be a non-issue. The land characteristics of Iowa and SE MN are practically identical. .

This may make sense if it WAS ONLY IN ZONE 3. The problem with pushing the season back in other parts of the state is a lot of ground that holds deer in November, doesn't hold deer in December or even late November. That would force an even more crowded situation.

[Gopher_Guy]

Right, that's why I mentioned zone 3 specifically. I realize it is not applicable to other parts of the state. That's why I was implying that the state needs to manage the state as separate portions, and not be all inclusive. There is just so much different territory in this vast state.