The gift of the deer tag vs trophy bucks

[ejf76]

Neither do I nonteep. I posted this on the other thread as well but is probably more fitting for this one.

Reminder: the DNR has only made it illegal to cross-tag bucks. I think it is something that is a long time coming considering MN has long been a one buck per hunter state when it comes to issuing tags. I hunt in both the shotgun and bow season and do agree with the one buck per hunter rules. But for those complaining about the new regs for cross-tagging bucks, I would ask how they would feel about the DNR allowing hunters to have multiple buck tags (one for bow, rifle/shotgun, muzzy). This is the way it is in ND, although they do draw for tags. There is no reason someone needs to fill someone else's buck tags given the policies the DNR has long held.

I would think and hope the DNR continues to allow party hunting for does. I understand the desire to fill tags in a party to be able to continue traditions in the field as well as after season processing traditions. There are many reasons to keep cross-tagging leagal for anterless deer. However there has never been much uproar over only allowing one buck tag per person throughout the seasons but yet now when that policy is applied to filling someone else's tag it becomes a big issue for many hunters. I think its hypocritical and would hope they soon extend that policy to all zones.

[Bear55]

Bear

do you party hunt now or hunt by yourself?

personally I think most of the people against party hunting are the ones that hunt by themselves. I do both and find it way more enjoyable party hunting

I've always hunted with a large party, some guys in our group still party hunt but many of us don't. I just don't feel people don't need to shoot more then one deer a year unless the population allows for more tags.

[mabr]

i still don't get why people think they are taking away party hunting.

NT my guess is that previously you could shoot whatever came by (drives) and worry about tagging after the fact. Now they are going to have to worry about what it is they are shooting at. Same issue with the 4 points to a side. No more brown its down, now there going to have to make sure.

IMO these are both great new laws that not only help the herd but will make the woods alot safer as a bonus.

[B.S. Bait]

I live and hunt near the white earth reservation. The natives there get 5 tags each, any sex at a very low cost like $5.00 each. When will the laws change for them? They also need a seperate record book for animals killed with rez tags. As shining is legal on some reservations.

[nonteepical]

I am for allowing more then one buck in a season under one circumstance, and that would be special lottery hunts such as Ripley, state parks or urban hunts to thin deer. those are lands closed to public hunting anyway and odds are you don't draw them every year.

[fivebucks]

I just hope this rule doesn't hit the north woods. Right now it would be OK because there are plenty of bonus doe tags out there. That can all change very fast with a hard winter and then we could be back to bucks only with a couple of doe permits for 8 guys. It is pretty hard to fill tags if you can't cross tag bucks in a situation like that. I would not be opposed to no cross tagging of bucks as long as you are not in a lottery area. If in a lottery area I think you need to allow cross tagging to keep the "hunting party tradition" alive. If you have 8 guys up hunting for a week and you're done if you shoot a buck on opening morning, that would very much stink if you can't continue hunting to help your buddies bring a deer home.

[Basseyes]

What about herd health?

What is our buck to doe ratios across MN or your hunting area?

Is our buck to doe ratios reflective of a healthy deer herd from a biological perspective?

How many states do not allow party hunting and are they all wrong and we're right?

Party hunting is a thing of the past and going to go away eventually like it or not. I doubt it will lead to any noticeable increased lose of hunters. I could care less if it stays legal or not. Our herd health is off and that is what needs to be addressed not antler size and a party hunting tradition left alone just because that's the way it's been. If party hunting is not about selfishness then let it go for the health of the herd. Constantly saying it's not about being selfish raises a red flag to me, thou dost protest to much. In getting rid of party hunting its been stated that people wouldn't hunt or would leave when they shot a deer. My question to that theory is coming from guys who claim to party hunt with a bunch of unselfish guys? That seems to define selfish behavior if they'd leave with little thought or care about anyone else, curious? One thing I've noticed about western states is they care more for the over all health of their herds. They understand bull to cow and buck to doe ratios. While we squabble about this is the way I like it or this is the way it's always been so leave it alone.

I personally think cross tagging bucks is poor management.

I also think managing for only the goal of big bucks is equally as bad.

Herd health and long term habitat management should take precedent over both social opinions for bigger bucks and traditional hunting regulations!

[Bear55]

Nice post Basseyes, very well said.

[ejf76]

Manageing for bigger bucks and keeping a healthy deer herd go hand in hand in a lot of ways. As long as the hunter is also willing to do their part in harvesting does along the way to maintain a healthy population.

[Getanet]

What about herd health?

What is our buck to doe ratios across MN or your hunting area?

I've often wondered this myself. I don't know what the buck to doe ratio is, but the DNR does provide harvest figures. 2007 was the most recent year I could find, where a total of 109K Bucks and 152K does where shot. Estimates for the MN deer population are generally around 1 million deer. In almost every area more does than bucks are harvested. So we know plenty of bucks are making it through the hunting season.

But here's my question...how does having more mature bucks help the herd? I know that may sound funny, but it's a serious question. QDM guys will admit you can't tell a deer's genetics (or potential) simply by it's rack. Bucks don't have father/son relationships where the mature animal educates a younger buck. And in most parts of the state, man is their main predator.

So ecologically speaking how does it help the heard to have more mature bucks?

[Bear55]

So ecologically speaking how does it help the heard to have more mature bucks?

More mature bucks to handle all the breeding = less stress on the younger bucks who should only be filling in the gaps and worrying about surviving the winter. Having more bucks in the population in general will allow for most of the does to be bread during the first rut, this allows earlier fawn births so the new "crop" is larger and healthier going into the next winter. Mother nature has provided the deer with all the tools they need to reproduce the most healthy way possible to extend the survival of their species. Man just likes to step in and think they "know" better and only shoot young bucks.

Before the invention of the doe tag the hunters would just shoot the first deer they saw, basically an equal harvest of does and bucks. There weren't many deer back in those days but there were was a balanced her a lot of nice bucks shot. Just imagine what today's large herd could be if we allowed them to balance themselves out a little bit.

[lakevet]

Good point.

The true "brown its down" hunter selects first deer he sees and eats it. He harvests deer without respect to antlers so herd is "balanced".

The "Gotta get a buck!" hunter passes on all those does and blasts the first buck he sees, usually the young buck that is the reason for these new regs trying to protect that young buck. Unlike the brown its down meat hunters, Gotta get a buck hunter exerts a major amount of pressure to skew the deer population towards too many does and too few mature bucks.

I think that the brown its down hunter is blamed for the damage the Gotta get a buck hunter is doing. If I was wanting to pick my neighbors and wanted big bucks around, I would prefer the brown its down much better than the Gotta get a buck neighbor who lets all the does walk and blasts all the bucks. It is easier to get someone who readily shoots does to let a buck pass, he will be happy with a doe. The Gotta get a buck hunter is tougher because if he doesn't get a buck, he won't be able to brag "I got my buck, did you?"

My older relatives said that their harvest as brown its down party hunters back in the 30's 40's 50's 60's was usually close to 50:50 antlered vs antlerless, slight tilt towards antlerless. Also got some nice bucks every year. After the doe permit regs the buck quality dropped, as we were all pushed into gotta get a buck mode if we wanted to eat venison. Family pics before the doe permit era show a mix of deer ages and sexes. Family pics after doe permits started show mostly bucks and a mix of ages of deer, but more young bucks as time went on. With management and intensive harvest, our pics are trending back towards mix of sexes and maturities of deer.

The gotta get a buck hunter group still shows all bucks, often young. He hates earn a buck regulations.(I know this isn't about earn a buck, just pointing out the different motivations)

The brown its down hunter is less affected by a reg like earn a buck because he still has a very good chance to shoot something brown (especially since that one will taste better )

So when you are saying brown its down, don't confuse us them with Gotta get a buck, any buck hunters. They are not the same and impact the buck population size and age structure differently.

lakevet

[96trigger]

Valid points lakevet. In zone 3, the deer numbers are good. Is it so bad that someone has to wait a little longer to not blast the first deer they see, which is part of the brown its down crowd motto. Too often during the rut, the first brown animal is a little buck. If some of those its brown its down guys could keep their fingers off the trigger and just wait for the doe that eventually comes by and let the little guy walk, we would all be better off.

[lakevet]

What also helped keep a balanced harvest back in the "old days" was the season back then was the same as wisconsin is now (they never changed it like Minnesota did), the week of thanksgiving and past rut peak.

With all the outcry about Minnesota not being with the times by allowing cross tagging (just like our "backward" trophy producing neighbors wisc & iowa), why isn't there more outcry and effort to move the hunt back to its original thanksgiving week?

Letting little bucks walk is gaining ground steadily without regulatory constraints.

lakevet

[Bear55]

With all the outcry about Minnesota not being with the times by allowing cross tagging (just like our "backward" trophy producing neighbors wisc & iowa), why isn't there more outcry and effort to move the hunt back to its original thanksgiving week?

We have discussed this move before on this site but as usual people had a million excuses not to move it. It basically comes down to those for change and those against change. I vote change, lets try something new and see how it works instead of just blindly bashing something.

[Getanet]

More mature bucks to handle all the breeding = less stress on the younger bucks who should only be filling in the gaps and worrying about surviving the winter. Having more bucks in the population in general will allow for most of the does to be bread during the first rut, this allows earlier fawn births so the new "crop" is larger and healthier going into the next winter. Mother nature has provided the deer with all the tools they need to reproduce the most healthy way possible to extend the survival of their species. Man just likes to step in and think they "know" better and only shoot young bucks.

Before the invention of the doe tag the hunters would just shoot the first deer they saw, basically an equal harvest of does and bucks. There weren't many deer back in those days but there were was a balanced her a lot of nice bucks shot. Just imagine what today's large herd could be if we allowed them to balance themselves out a little bit.

Bear, I was following you up until the last sentence of your first paragraph. If mature bucks are the ones that should be breeding, how is shooting young bucks hurting? If anything that would help the mature bucks by eliminating some of their breeding competition.

Again, based solely on deer population estimates and harvest figures we only harvest 1/4 of MN's entire deer population. Less than 50% of those are bucks. How can there be a lack of mature bucks in MN? I can understand how perhaps a very small part of the state has an imbalance - such as apparently is the case in SEMN. But there are enough people in these forums that would like to see measures implemented state wide where logically I can't see evidence to back up a claim of a lack of mature bucks in MN.

[Bear55]

Well when most of the bucks get shot as 1.5 years old and even more as 2.5 years olds that does not leave a lot of older breeding stock bucks left. You also have plenty of 1.5 year old bucks who maybe not be the best of the best doing breeding because they haven't lived long enough to go through that whole survival of the fittest thing. This isn't so much a antler genetics argument but more along the lines of herd health and hoping that the strongest-healthiest-smartest deer are passing on their genes.

My last sentence is basically taking a shot at our history managing for population vs herd health when we really should have been managing for both.

You say you can't see any evidence to show a lack of mature bucks? I'm not sure how you don't see it. Wasn't there an article in the last year or so that stated 70% of the bucks shot in Minnesota were 1.5 year olds? That alone should be enough for anyone to see that our mature buck population has a serious problem. Before someone chimes in with look at all the bucks on the back of Outdoor News, that is hardly a large enough sample size, of course we have some very nice bucks. If that is not enough I'd say public opinion might be a telling sign, 50% of deer hunter in the SE and probably state wide want to see regulation changes to help protect younger bucks. Could half the hunters who spend a lot of time in the woods be wrong or is there really a lack of mature bucks in the state when compared to other states and to mother natures balanced 1 to 1 buck/doe ratio.

[Getanet]

Bear, the article you mention was written by a director of the Quality Deer Management Association. The very beginning of the article cautions that states use several different techniques to collect this data, and some states collect more data than others. Nowhere does it cite where or how they got that data.

I've never found that statistic reported anywhere other than by QDM folks. If you can find the MN DNR reporting that figure I'd be more than happy to listen to it. Until then, I don't think that lone article by the QDMA validates anything.

[nonteepical]

let's say the average doe has a set of twins, of the fawns lets say one is a buck and one is a doe. last years antlerless kill was 170,000 and one third of that would leave 56,000 buck fawns killed. now, our buck harvest just surpassed our doe harvest.

[LightningBG]

nontee - where did 1/3 of antlerless was buck fawns come from? and where did 170K antlerless come from?

Just so we are clear. Here are the hard number for the past 16 or so years.

[Getanet]

The total deer harvest in 2009 was 194,186. Of those 94,367 were bucks and 99,819 were antlerless.

But what's your point Nonteepical?

[nonteepical]

they're counting fawns as antlerless or in other words the buck fawns are being counted as does in the antlerless count. a doe on average has twins. now you have mother doe, doe fawn and buck fawn =3. divide 99,819 by 3, equals 33,273 buck fawns shot. add that to the buck harvest and subtract from the antlerless total now you have: 127,640 bucks harvested and 66,546 does harvested. twice as many bucks. i thought someone posted 170,000 does harvested in one of the threads my mistake.

[LightningBG]

Here's another chart for just 2009. Might be a little easier to decipher.

[nonteepical]

Bear, the article you mention was written by a director of the Quality Deer Management Association. The very beginning of the article cautions that states use several different techniques to collect this data, and some states collect more data than others. Nowhere does it cite where or how they got that data.

I've never found that statistic reported anywhere other than by QDM folks. If you can find the MN DNR reporting that figure I'd be more than happy to listen to it. Until then, I don't think that lone article by the QDMA validates anything. QDMA requested the data from every state. the states that replied is where they got their data from thats why data varies from state to state. minnesota did send in their data same type of stuff thats on their websight.

[LightningBG]

they're counting fawns as antlerless or in other words the buck fawns are being counted as does in the antlerless count. a doe on average has twins. now you have mother doe, doe fawn and buck fawn =3. divide 99,819 by 3, equals 33,273 buck fawns shot. add that to the buck harvest and subtract from the antlerless total now you have: 127,640 bucks harvested and 66,546 does harvested. twice as many bucks. i thought someone posted 170,000 does harvested in one of the threads my mistake.

But you're assuming that people are harvesting fawns at an equal rate to does (or even a 2:1 ratio fawns to does (female fawn/male fawn/mature female)), which I don't think is accurate. If I see a nice doe I'll take it down without a second thought. If I see a dinky little deer (presumably a fawn), I'm not going to take the shot, no matter what sex it is. Sure, some fawns get shot, but to think its equivalent to mature does is misguided.

[nonteepical]

with a 100,000 antlerless my guess is the law of averages wins out and that would be equal of each. especially over a 10 year peroid

[Bear55]

Bear, the article you mention was written by a director of the Quality Deer Management Association. The very beginning of the article cautions that states use several different techniques to collect this data, and some states collect more data than others. Nowhere does it cite where or how they got that data.

I've never found that statistic reported anywhere other than by QDM folks. If you can find the MN DNR reporting that figure I'd be more than happy to listen to it. Until then, I don't think that lone article by the QDMA validates anything.

Valid point that article was from a QDM guy so that has to be taken into consideration but that doesn't mean those number are not accurate or close to accurate. I would like to think that the DNR has more info but I fear they don't, or worse they have it but aren't giving us the info.

[nonteepical]

the QDMA artical was data requested by QDMA from the states who wanted to participate. minnesota gave them our data, pretty much same stuff on DNR websight.

[Getanet]

Here are those 2009 statistics:

Bucks = 94,367

Antlerless = 65,008

Male Fawns = 19,905

Female Fawns = 14,906

So yes, last year more male deer were shot than female deer. But that still doesn't signify anything specific to me. Perhaps a higher birth rate of male than female deer that particular year. People aren't specifically targeting male fawns as "bucks."

[Getanet]

I can't find the MN DNR data anywhere on its website about the age breakdown of harvested bucks. I would love to find it. With all the information, statistics and survey data the DNR does make public I would think that information wouldn't be too difficult to find.

Their harvest data only includes Adult Male, Adult Female, Male Fawn and Female Fawn.