APR, QDM, Trophy Hunters, etc....

[john skarie]

You guys want to dump party hunting because you don't like it, or are you claiming that it is ruining the deer herd??

If it's ruining the deer herd, than why are the other states that allow it so much better than MN??

I hunt off the beaten path. Normally at least a days travel over water and over land to camp. We have 3 to 4 guys and whether or not one of us shoots all the deer or we all shoot one we don't care. We don't go through all that work to not get our deer.

Just because a few bad apples may abuse party hunting doesn't mean it should be abolished 'cause some of you feel there aren't enough trophies for you in MN.

JS

[Whoknows]

This debate has been a great read the last few days. Albeit unresolved. There is no quick fix here. The way I see it, there is a reason Minnesota used to be top producer of large mature whitetails. We have some of the best habitat and largest tracts of unbroken public land, of the big deer hunting states. Now how did we get into the situation we are in today? Well due to a string of severe winters and over harvest from poor management. The troubled deer population started the for a lack of a better term "if it's brown its down" mentality. Many hunters during the lean years were lucky to even see a deer. Well the deer population eventually rebounded with better dnr enforced management practices. Keep in mind they were managed for population. As the herd grew these same hunters that were shaped during the lean years filled there legally obtained tags. As you can see, it pretty obvious how we got the poor age structure and poor sex ration. Boom and bust population swings over a relatively short time frame (50years) really throw things out of wack. Time along with better population management and educating more and more hunters is the only fix.

There is hope for Minnesota deer hunting(as long as we don't allow politicians to end it.) Nature is very adaptable and resilient. I have noticed major mentality changes in the last 5-10years. Every year I hear of more and more hunting parties deciding as a group to better manage "their" herd. Mark my words, Minnesota will one day regain the top spot for large bucks. It might not happen over night but i can bet the house, it will. And did I mention it wont be done threw APR's and lotto buck tags but just through better education.

[jabug]

i to fail to see how party hunting is ruining the deer herd. let it be the choice of the hunters. we have enough govt control now. if five hunters hunt together and on guy shoots three or three guys shoot one it is still three dead deer. if you choose to shoot just trophy deer then let that be your choice not one forced upon all by more laws. there are more trophy deer out there then many think. they just have alot more cover then most states. every year we see trail cam picts and succesful hunting trips with some real nice deer. everybody is not going to get a trophy most might not even see one but that dont mean they are not there and i really dont think it is a reason to come up with more rules. leave the choice of what size is a trophy to the hunter. i dont think any hunter needs to be told what is a trophy and not a trophy that is a personal deccision that should be left up to the hunter

[john skarie]

Maybe some of you could enlighten me with some facts about how the trophy bucks used to be here and aren't now, or never were, or whatever exactly the claim is.

I live north of Detroit Lakes, hunt here some and a lot up north of Ely.

My neighbors and friends around DL seem to do real well with big bucks.

My brother has shot 4 deer in the last decade that went Pope and Young on my parents farm and neighbors land.

I see many big deer on friends cameras in Becker and Ottertail County, the vast majority of pics taken at night.

I know of 3 deer within an hour of my house that went over 170 this year.

I just can't help but think there are a lot more big bucks out there than some of you realize. Does anyone have real proof there is a problem or is it just talk??

JS

[surewood]

I don't want to see any changes other then moving opener to the second weekend of November which I stated in another post so there are more bucks to breed does to help prevent late fawning. Other then that it should be our choice. People shoot what makes them happy. I've also said before I think it's becoming more of a trend for hunters to pass on immature deer. Just a matter of time without having more restrictions.

[bottom-bouncer]

PSE,

I'm not against your suggestion, but i must point out there are some pretty huge ares with next to zero public land (SE MN) and there are areas where you can't go a mile without running into public land (SW MN).

I know in murray county where i grew up, there are atleast 30 WMA in one hunting zone. Most of which is tall grass land, but deer habitat none the less.

Now move over to zone 348/347 where i hunt now, and there is ONE 300acre public hunting spot attached to forestville state park...Luckily i've got access to 40acres of woods that butts right up to forestville so the pressure of the hunters blasting away in the public land pushed deer to us. But public land hunting is just not an option in certain areas of the state, such as SE MN. I'm quite lucky to be able to hunt in that area of the state.

Murray:

Fillmore:

your map isnt even in the ball park. there is alot of state land from lanesboro all the way to rushford and the there is a whole bunch more between houston and caladonia. Trust me I live here I dont just show up for two weekends a year and try and tell others what the deer population is or should be

[Jameson]

I don't want to see any changes other then moving opener to the second weekend of November which I stated in another post so there are more bucks to breed does to help prevent late fawning. ...

I'll get behind the idea of moving the firearms season back ONE week if ONE other thing changes, antlerless only prior to the opening of firearms season.

It's a compromise. Not nit-picking anyone's idea, or being negative.

[DaveT]

I know of 3 deer within an hour of my house that went over 170 this year.

I just can't help but think there are a lot more big bucks out there than some of you realize. Does anyone have real proof there is a problem or is it just talk??

So 3 170 bucks in 120 square miles? Figure 20 deer per square mile, 5 bucks per square mile, 3 mature bucks out of 600? Prove it yourself, you're doing just fine without my help.

Seriously, yes there are mature bucks here, there are a lot more in states with balanced age structures, and it wouldn't take much to improve ours. I know of 1 170 class buck, 1 150 class buck, and one 145 class buck shot on the same 300 acres in KS. Plus the 4 140 class bucks on the same property that get to live another year.

Is there a problem here? Depends on what you consider good hunting. I enjoy just as much camaraderie with my family in KS as I do in MN, I enjoy watching deer and wildlife just as much in KS as I do in MN, I get to see more deer, more bucks, more mature bucks, and occasionally I get to shoot one of those mature bucks too in KS. That's why I go there, it's better, a lot better, than here. It still takes a lot of hard work and time to kill those bucks, but it sure feels nice to have your work pay off in a tangible way.

When I put out that same effort in MN, nothing changes. I still only see yearling bucks because that is mostly what we have here.

[james_walleye]

Lol you beat me to it. 3 deer within an hour over 170? Is that suppose to be good??

[james_walleye]

I guess I don't get the antlerless before gun season bit. I don't have a special permit to bowhunt. If some decides to "handicap" themselves and choose to not hunt until firearm season, that is their choice. It's not something forced upon anyone.

[Jameson]

...so there are more bucks to breed does to help prevent late fawning. ...

others reasons too, but this one is good enough.

[psepuncher]

but you need enough quality deer for people to even consider and pay that quality hunt

I'm not giving up hope on you teep.

Give me a nice quality hunt that I can enjoy with a couple of other quality sportsmen { see I can put that word in and it means something again} hunters on

a quality WMA during the rut. The way it pans out is it's a way to progression, always dynamic. Just think after one season it gets better and better.

Heck you could have a nice camp with this scenario. Won't matter if you own your own place or just a non resi. whos passion is to enjoy a quality hunt. This could

put booners across the state more quicker than using APR's by themselves.

I think Lou said population numbers went down below managment goals, so there's no place to go but up. Instead of allowing sportsmen to keep hammering any ol' deer , we have to do a better job of supporting ratio's and age class.

One small step for sportsmen, and one giant leap for management.

I'm willing to take that first step, ain't y'all?

[john skarie]

So I only know of 3 deer that go over 170 within an hour of me means that quality deer aren't available?? Really?

I'm pretty sure that most hunters would consider deer much smaller than that of good quality. There are plenty of those around too.

I guess until we have a 170 class deer in every section of land in MN we won't be up to par??

Seems the expectations are pretty unrealistic.

How many of you have ever seen a deer that would go 170 anywhere while you were hunting in any state??

JS

[nonteepical]

Maybe some of you could enlighten me with some facts about how the trophy bucks used to be here and aren't now, or never were, or whatever exactly the claim is.

I live north of Detroit Lakes, hunt here some and a lot up north of Ely.

My neighbors and friends around DL seem to do real well with big bucks.

My brother has shot 4 deer in the last decade that went Pope and Young on my parents farm and neighbors land.

I see many big deer on friends cameras in Becker and Ottertail County, the vast majority of pics taken at night.

I know of 3 deer within an hour of my house that went over 170 this year.

I just can't help but think there are a lot more big bucks out there than some of you realize. Does anyone have real proof there is a problem or is it just talk??

JS

if you believe the deer population is about 1 million animals like the DNR tells us, and if you think our doe to buck ratio is better than 2 to 1(3 to 1 is more realistic) and you believe the DNR buck harvest records, then you have to believe that our turn over rate of bucks is every 3 years (at best). in other words we kill 1/3 of our buck population annually meaning very few live beyond 3.5 years old. a buck dosen't reach his prime untill 5.5 to 7.5 years old and been known to live to 12 in the wild.

[DaveT]

So I only know of 3 deer that go over 170 within an hour of me means that quality deer aren't available?? Really?

I'm pretty sure that most hunters would consider deer much smaller than that of good quality. There are plenty of those around too.

I guess until we have a 170 class deer in every section of land in MN we won't be up to par??

Seems the expectations are pretty unrealistic.

How many of you have ever seen a deer that would go 170 anywhere while you were hunting in any state??

JS

I was teasing you a little JS, I don't expect you to know how many mature bucks get shot in your area. Also, most mature bucks are going to score 130-150, maybe one out of five gets bigger than that. So I consider any buck that's 4.5 years old a trophy, no matter what he has on his head.

As far as 170 class bucks, didn't know how to score or field judge bucks when I was younger, but in the last 12 years or so I've seen 2 in MN, both over 6 years ago. 1 in Alberta, 2 in Kansas, and 2 in Iowa. They are rare, but not nearly as rare as a lot of people think.

[BRULEDRIFTER]

Have we set a record yet for this broken record of a topic? 30 pages and counting.....

[lakevet]

I say lets dump party hunting next season.

Shoot your own deer. So many say it's all about the time together and the tradition of hunting yet they let another shoot thier deer. Or, some purchase a license and do not even go out. They just have another shoot it for them.

Harvey,

Read your own post. Yes hunting together means pooling your efforts as a group AFIELD TOGETHER AT THE SAME TIME. This includes tags. It is about "WE" not the selfish"ME". I get great satisfaction when an elderly relative or young kid gets to harvest a deer, and I gift my tag to them because I was hunting afield at the same time together and WE worked as a group to harvest that deer.

The part about purchase a license and not even go out, but let someone else fill it is already illegal. Call a CO and report it!!!!! That is NOT party hunting, it is poaching!!!!

I have yet to see anything but personal opinion in the case against party hunting. Even Lou C. at the DNR has said that it won't save a significant number of bucks. No study has ever shown any SIGNIFICANT increase in the big bucks due to a party hunt ban. The plain fact is that Wisconsin and Iowa have party hunting existing just fine with trophy hunting. And Minnesota had party hunting when it led the country for book bucks. And had party hunting statewide including experimental zone 3 when MN was praised by the 2011 QDMA report as the most improved state for harvesting less young bucks. This is the same QDMA that called MN the worst state for shooting young bucks. Why push for a ban on another's style of hunting that will not provide the improvement you seek? Especially when there is no solid science behind the ban, just the "I don't like the way your family hunts" attitude.

We "party hunt" deer, small game and fish in Minnesota. Don't see anyone screaming for ban on a kid catching his dad's walleye limit or putting two trophy walleyes in the boat because Dad gifted his legal ability to harvest one 30" walleye or 50" musky to his kid. Or pounding the grouse or pheasant population by party hunting.

As much as I dislike APR's, they do have science that supports the concept, unlike party hunting bans.

And the buck population doesn't need an army of scoped muzzleloaders hunting them an extra 16 days a year like many of the ban the party hunters group want to implement.

lakevet

[Big Dave2]

I find it quite interesting that as a fishing community we have readily accepted slot limits with fishing but are dead set against any sort of similiar restrictions with deer.

As a fishing community we also accept harvesting as a party which seems to be shunned by the Trophy folks.

The difference between fishing slot limits and APR is that the slot limits are protecting the breeding FEMALES so that there are more eater size fish to harvest. It is not necessarily meant to create trophy fish.

[lakevet]

Thats the crux of it. Many of us don't think party hunting should be legal.

It doesn't make sense to me that each person needs to buy their own license (with their name on it, when they are old enough and have obtained their hunters safety certificate, and which they can only get if they have not lost their hunting privileges and met the prior criteria), that each person can only take one deer per tag, that you can only buy a certain number of tags per person, BUT...you can transfer that tag to someone else? Why even have the restriction then? A license is a privilege granted to YOU by the state, and we aren't purchasing the right to a deer, we're purchasing a right to try and fill that tag.

Seems to me, people would laugh if someone wanted to transfer their drivers license and privilege to drive to a buddy if they can't find their drivers license, don't have a valid license because they had their limit of speeding tickets or driving infractions, etc.

Again in Minnesota we "party hunt" deer, small game, and fish. These involve licenses to hunt and fish.

Most who dislike and want to ban party hunting have either had a bad experience or have a perception formed from others opinions. I could use the same bad experience approach to push for bans on heated permanent stands, or any stand/blind on public land resulting in people feeling they own that spot for the season (or multiple seasons), trail cams that make hunter feel that it is their "deer" before they shoot it, modern muzzleloaders that make it easier to get a shot off reliably, thus making a deer harvest easier, gps, 4 wheelers that make it easy to access what used to be hard to get to, hidden refuges for bucks to survive in and grow, etc, etc.

Again party hunting can and does peacefully coexist with the production of big bucks in the neighboring states of Wisconsin and Iowa. We can coexist. Banning another's style of hunting just because you don't like it, and not based on science almost seems like a tactic used by those who want to ban hunting altogether just because they don't like it. Not trying to insult, just think about the why and is it reasonable for a logical, science based pro hunting person to ban a type of hunting just because.............

lakevet

[Big Dave2]

Thats the crux of it. Many of us don't think party hunting should be legal.

It doesn't make sense to me that each person needs to buy their own license (with their name on it, when they are old enough and have obtained their hunters safety certificate, and which they can only get if they have not lost their hunting privileges and met the prior criteria), that each person can only take one deer per tag, that you can only buy a certain number of tags per person, BUT...you can transfer that tag to someone else? Why even have the restriction then? A license is a privilege granted to YOU by the state, and we aren't purchasing the right to a deer, we're purchasing a right to try and fill that tag.Seems to me, people would laugh if someone wanted to transfer their drivers license and privilege to drive to a buddy if they can't find their drivers license, don't have a valid license because they had their limit of speeding tickets or driving infractions, etc.

I think the hunting license and the tag are 2 different things. Each hunter still needs to have a seperate license, no one is gifting a license they are gifting thier tag. The license is the privlilege to hunt and the tag is privilege to HARVEST a deer.

If my hunting party has 5 tags, why do we not have the privelge to harvest 5 deer? It's like a possession limit.

[certified jumbo]

I say lets dump party hunting next season.

Shoot your own deer. So many say it's all about the time together and the tradition of hunting yet they let another shoot thier deer. Or, some purchase a license and do not even go out. They just have another shoot it for them.

Then, you get one license.

Then lets have a lottery for bucks also.

Now we will get somewhere.

Let's here all the negative on this now.

Well Harvy, I respect everyones own opinion and i don't want to argue, but I like party hunting. I have an awesome party of guys and gals to hunt with and its been great. We share tags and it has worked well for us. I shot a buck early in the year and i'm excited for my chance to shoot another one. I've still got almost a month to do so.

Thank you MNDNR for allowing party hunting because our group enjoys it and its best for hunting in our opinion.

[hockeybc69]

On my property..... you shoot it you tag it...

Party hunting is lame....

Shortest post in this thread. LOL

[TruthWalleyes]

your map isnt even in the ball park. there is alot of state land from lanesboro all the way to rushford and the there is a whole bunch more between houston and caladonia. Trust me I live here I dont just show up for two weekends a year and try and tell others what the deer population is or should be

Touche...

These must be small plots of state forest?

Where in Gods name do you find these public lands? Not on any DNR website that i've found.

[BLACKJACK]

This debate has been a great read the last few days. Albeit unresolved. There is no quick fix here. The way I see it, there is a reason Minnesota used to be top producer of large mature whitetails. We have some of the best habitat and largest tracts of unbroken public land, of the big deer hunting states. Now how did we get into the situation we are in today? Well due to a string of severe winters and over harvest from poor management. The troubled deer population started the for a lack of a better term "if it's brown its down" mentality. Many hunters during the lean years were lucky to even see a deer. Well the deer population eventually rebounded with better dnr enforced management practices. Keep in mind they were managed for population. As the herd grew these same hunters that were shaped during the lean years filled there legally obtained tags. As you can see, it pretty obvious how we got the poor age structure and poor sex ration. Boom and bust population swings over a relatively short time frame (50years) really throw things out of wack. Time along with better population management and educating more and more hunters is the only fix.

There is hope for Minnesota deer hunting(as long as we don't allow politicians to end it.) Nature is very adaptable and resilient. I have noticed major mentality changes in the last 5-10years. Every year I hear of more and more hunting parties deciding as a group to better manage "their" herd. Mark my words, Minnesota will one day regain the top spot for large bucks. It might not happen over night but i can bet the house, it will. And did I mention it wont be done threw APR's and lotto buck tags but just through better education.

Good post and right on!! The lean years did shape a lot of the 'brown its down mentality'. And in a lot of lottery zones, its still that way, the only deer you see might be a forkhorn buck, if you like venison, you're going to shoot it.

[BLACKJACK]

Is cross-tagging of bucks really that big of a problem??? If its banned, people that do drives will just put the people with open buck tags on the end or in the best stands, banning cross tagging is not going to save that many bucks.

[B. Amish]

i was looking at some numbers of deer harvested in mn and surrounding states. i couldn't find numbers for kansas or north dakota. and wisconsin only shows antlered vs antlerless harvested each year.

mn and iowa both show numbers so you can split them up between either male or female. (not antler vs antlerless).

since 2004, of the entire deer harvest, this is the percentage of male deer harvested each year.

year mn iowa

2004 56 47

2005 56 44

2006 51 48

2007 53 48.6

2008 54 47

2009 59 47.7

2010 58 48

just looking at the percentage of antlered deer harvested in wisconsin, i'd guess they too harvest more males than females each year.

[JIvers]

i was looking at some numbers of deer harvested in mn and surrounding states. i couldn't find numbers for kansas or north dakota. and wisconsin only shows antlered vs antlerless harvested each year.

mn and iowa both show numbers so you can split them up between either male or female. (not antler vs antlerless).

since 2004, of the entire deer harvest, this is the percentage of male deer harvested each year.

year mn iowa

2004 56 47

2005 56 44

2006 51 48

2007 53 48.6

2008 54 47

2009 59 47.7

2010 58 48

just looking at the percentage of antlered deer harvested in wisconsin, i'd guess they too harvest more males than females each year.

Keep in mind that Iowa in at least some of those years, if not all of them, has had a three-day early antlerless-only season in most counties, and a late-season (mid-January) antlerless season in the southern third or so of the state. During that late-season antlerless season in southern Iowa it is, or was, legal to use centerfire rifles.

[nolte]

As a fishing community we also accept harvesting as a party which seems to be shunned by the Trophy folks.

The difference between fishing slot limits and APR is that the slot limits are protecting the breeding FEMALES so that there are more eater size fish to harvest. It is not necessarily meant to create trophy fish.

Fair points, but not all Trophy hunters are against party hunting. They seem to be against it when it wipes out all the little bucks. I also know many guys who pass on a bunch of little bucks who will gladly harvest a doe if it's allowed.

Having more older bucks will allow does to be bred earlier, thus allowing fawns to be born earlier. Those doe fawns the next year then have a better chance of being bred and having fawns. Late small fawns usually waren't bred until the following year thus creating a year gap.

[CodyDawg]

I am not going back and reading all of the posts, but I was wondering, did anyone who is against working to have more mature bucks in our deer herd bring up that they see all kinds of big bucks in Outdoor News? I always laught at that type of ignorant post and it happens every time in these threads. My own anecdotal evidence? I hunt in a great area. Carrying capacity is huge, the deer herd is big and only occasionaly do we even see a 4.5 yr old or older buck. I have documented passing up 67 bucks in the last 15 years. I have not seen a 4.5 or older. Why? Because of some of my party who cannot get it in their head to let the little bucks go and party hunting (and yes, then they whine about not seeing the big ones).

Since I am late to the game, I will quickly summarize my view. We need to do something to increase the mature bucks. I would wholeheartedly support a ban on party hunting (shooting one is enough, no one needs to be greedy).

[BobT]

Where I struggle with this topic and our usual discussions (arguments) is when I hear statements to suggest that the deer have been poorly managed or today we have a "if it's brown it's down" mentality or we have unbalanced doe to buck ratios.

What is the evidence to suggest that the deer have been poorly managed to cause these problems? Due to lack of management the deer population in this state was nearly decimated by the turn of the 20th century. It wasn't until we began to regulate and manage our deer herd that it began to rebound and now we have some areas with near over-population problems. It would seem that the poor deer management idea is a misnomer.

This leads me to the question of doe:buck ratio. Why do you think we have intensive harvest areas where we can take up to as many as 5 does or 1 buck and 4 does? These areas suffer from an imbalance of does to bucks resulting in eliminating the need for bucks to compete for does to service and so no longer do the dominant and typically most adept bucks father the next generation anymore. They all get to breed, even those that carry lower quality genetics. Reducing doe numbers forces the bucks to spar for breeding rights and consequently the best buck wins would be the more typical rule. Not only that but reducing the doe numbers also reduces the population going forward and thereby reduces the potential problems that stem from over-population such as disease and abnormalities.

And what about the "if it's brown it's down mentality?" Ever look at old photos of deer hunters? Tell me they didn't have that same mentality. In fact, that mentality was common with fishing, trapping, tree harvesting, etc. and resulted in many of the laws we have today. Lake Osakis once had the distinction of being dubbed the "Mother Lake" for walleyes in this area. The local "Walleye Lodge" in Osakis displays photos from days past with guys showing their catch. Strings of huge walleyes, northern, and other species of fish. Imagine what the fishery would be like had they not taken all those fish with reckless abandon. Now today we are left with a fishery that is but a skeleton of what it once was. I thumb through my Pheasants Forever magazine and see old photos of guys displaying pheasants like we could only imagine today. The latest one had a comment about one of the photos where the question was asked, "What did you do with all those pheasants?" The reply was something like, "We got sick of eating pheasant." If that's not a "if it's brown it's down" attitude, I don't know what is.