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

[TruthWalleyes]

How do big horns help the deer population? What does horn size have to do with deer hunting. I'm all for shooting a big buck if the opportunity presents itself, but i'm not all for changing the way we harvest deer to suit the individuals who dwell over horns.

I hunt so much private land during the entire season its rediculous how good i've got it, most of which is in APR zones(800acres or so). What pizzes me off is when i have to pull out my binocs before pulling the trigger on a doe. I'm out hunting to put venison in the freezer. My buck tag rarely gets filled as i'm waiting for the once in a lifetime buck...You won't see me MAD because i didn't get to shoot one, and i won't blame the neighbors for shooting a small buck either.

APR (For fear of shooting an illegial buck 3.1"HORNS) Has forced me to not pull the trigger on hundreds of does in the last few years because i'm trying to see with absolute 100% confidence that there isn't a dinky horn behind a ear.

[kern]

Another question I have, how many does is to many to harvest? I personally don't believe any zone can handle shooting 5 deer a year for more than one year, maybe two.

[InTheNorthwoods]

And to take inthenorthwoods' comment a step farther, there are less hunters on more private land due to the "trophy craze". People don't want anybody on there land, if they hunt because if you shoot the big buck, they can't! Not at all pointing fingers to anyone in here because i personally don't know anyone, so please don't take it that way but in my honest opinion more and more hunters are become selfish people that only want what is best for them.

Or, those people have realized that the general public only has their interests in mind, and they want to control ground to produce a healthier deer herd (practice QDM), and in turn, shoot bigger bucks. As it stands, the brown its down, party hunting, shoot anything crowd has all the control and power over deer management. Their actions can dictate the herd structure far more than a person who wants bigger bucks. So, I ask, is it really any more selfish to want to allow deer to mature than to want to be able to kill whatever someone wants? I dont' think so, it is just a difference of thought. At least the individual who controls ground and manages the herd gives something back to the deer generally through habitat improvement, etc., and in most cases, those people want to see other hunters have that opportunity and involve others in the hunt. Just food for thought.

[kern]

Inthenorthwoods

If i get permission for a property owner that told me i can't shoot anything unless it is mature, I can guarantee I wouldn't! I guess what I was trying to state that is if i were hunting the property there is a possiblity I might connect on a big deer and the majority of land owners as you stated above are not willing to take that chance.

[DaveT]

You have stated your opinion. Do you have any research on these numbers to back you up?

Whistler

No. I have no research to back that up which is why I called it my opinion. However, I do have 12 years of experience hunting in the states I've mentioned.

There has to be a reason why I go from seeing nothing but yearling bucks in MN, to seeing multiple bucks of all age classes, including mature bucks in those other states. The bucks move when the rut is on, all of them. The mature bucks may move a little less as they seem to be more efficient at finding does than the young ones, but I still see them in those other states and I rarely see them here, even though I put in twice as much time in MN than I do in other states.

Sorry to drag up stuff from 3 pages ago but since I started this thread I felt obligated to answer questions directed at me.

[Musky Buck]

You stretch the truth trutheyes, hundreds of does in the last few years well then you shouldn't have an issue telling a buck from a doe, are they all like a mile away, if you have seen hundreds of does and can't pull the trigger what's wrong ? If you whistle at them they'll stop and look at you and I bet some have had a fawn or 2 with her. Hundreds of does, hundreds of them. Look at there brisket, thin neck, the fawns with them and if they aren't running you have ample time to scope the head, and put her down. You just hate APR so before it you mistakingly shot bucks you thought were does apparently.

[InTheNorthwoods]

How do big horns help the deer population? What does horn size have to do with deer hunting. I'm all for shooting a big buck if the opportunity presents itself, but i'm not all for changing the way we harvest deer to suit the individuals who dwell over horns.

I hunt so much private land during the entire season its rediculous how good i've got it, most of which is in APR zones(800acres or so). What pizzes me off is when i have to pull out my binocs before pulling the trigger on a doe. I'm out hunting to put venison in the freezer. My buck tag rarely gets filled as i'm waiting for the once in a lifetime buck...You won't see me MAD because i didn't get to shoot one, and i won't blame the neighbors for shooting a small buck either.

APR (For fear of shooting an illegial buck 3.1"HORNS) Has forced me to not pull the trigger on hundreds of does in the last few years because i'm trying to see with absolute 100% confidence that there isn't a dinky horn behind a ear.

In the general sense, I still find this to be one of the laziest excuses against APR's one can possibly make. I mean, is it really that great of a burden to know with a minimal degree of confidence what you are shooting at before you pull the trigger? It is not difficult to differentiate a doe from a small buck in all but the instances where you are only offered a low percentage shot anyways (i.e. due to obstructions, lack of preparation, fast moving deer, long ranges, etc.) I guess I take issue with those that don't have the respect for the animal or their surroundings to try to make high percentage shots.

[kern]

Dave T

I guess the way I was looking at it was a party is define a group of people trying to help each other get a deer(not exactly but close enough for what I'm trying to say) so in my opinion once your buck is shot(again coming from a lottery area) i would not be able to help anyone get a deer(party hunt) so in effect, I would not be able to go into the woods for the rest of the year. For me it has nothing to do with shooting a deer but if you give up party hunting you also give up the ability to help some one else get a deer.

[TruthWalleyes]

You stretch the truth trutheyes, hundreds of does in the last few years well then you shouldn't have an issue telling a buck from a doe, are they all like a mile away, if you have seen hundreds of does and can't pull the trigger what's wrong ? If you whistle at them they'll stop and look at you and I bet some have had a fawn or 2 with her. Hundreds of does, hundreds of them. Look at there brisket, thin neck, the fawns with them and if they aren't running you have ample time to scope the head, and put her down. You just hate APR so before it you mistakingly shot bucks you thought were does apparently.

80yds and i'm pulling out the binocs. I hunted 21 days last year, only 7 so far this year but many more to go. I'm hunting hundreds of acres of land in SE MN - Woods. I see lots of deer! But, when there are sticks, branches, etc in front of these deer...you better pull out the magnification to be sure. About 40 does this year in 7 days of hunting.

I'm not stretching...everytime i see a deer i wonder if it isn't hiding a small point - I guess it effects careful hunters more than 'brown n down' hunters. And if your ONLY hunting mature bucks, then its obvious why you love the APR regs. Just trying to get the point accross that it makes taking does more difficult.

Not using a scope either. Peep sight on a muzzle...Shotgun and Muzzle season.

[TruthWalleyes]

InTheNorthwoods...Why do you think i've let so many walk by... 99% of the time i'm right when i pull up the binocs...and almost always too late to put the binocs down and take a high percentage shot...so they walk. No Big Deal. I've eaten 3 tags each year, 3 years in a row.

[kern]

Kern not all bucks are on private land. For those including me that hunt both private and public u would have a better chance at a nicer deer. Just because I have private ground don't guarantee me a deer,I know a lot of people who do very well on public land.

I agree with you that there is good hunting on some public land. what i'm trying to say is that with the "trophy craze" more and more land owners will stop giving permission and more and more people will be hunting the public land making it worse and worse as time goes on.

[TruthWalleyes]

I agree with you that there is good hunting on some public land. what i'm trying to say is that with the "trophy craze" more and more land owners will stop giving permission and more and more people will be hunting the public land making it worse and worse as time goes on.

+1

Well Said.

Next step...High Fences.

[Jameson]

...I think it should the other way around as I posted earlier. You should pay more if you want to shoot that small "trophy".

I could actually see this working if tried for a year or two, no more. Make an any-buck tag $50 and a big-buck tag $25. How to define a big buck I'm not sure, as it would very from area to area, but the idea has some merit.

Those purchasing the big-buck tag would have less opportunities (deer) to shoot, and be less likely to succeed, thus justifying the lower price.

[Getanet]

Yes, it has merit, but I would argue very little.

You basically just doubled the hunting license for the average hunter and gave them no additional benefit.

It also makes the precious commodity (big antlers) cheaper, which is the opposite of how most markets function.

I think this idea needs a bit more polishing.

[DaveT]

I'm pretty sure having a license allows you to "pursue" game, the definition of pursuit includes making drives and other things to help others shoot deer. I don't have the regs in front of me, but I have no problem with any of that, I just want the guy with the tag to be the guy pulling the trigger. If the current law would prohibit you from aiding your party in the pursuit of their own deer after you have tagged yours, then I would be in favor of changing that law. I hope that made sense, but I think it's legal to help others shoot deer as long as you have a license, tag or not, and if it isn't, it should be.

[smnduck]

2 words for all of this. HORN PORN! Show me the facts that APR or any of that hogwash makes a herd healthier. A 1.5 year old has the same genes as a 5.5 year old. Does it matter at what point in his life he breeds? If you do not want to shoot a small deer, then don't. Pretty simple. But to change the laws so "your style" of hunting is "the right way" is B!@#$%^IT. I already have to draw for a doe tag, why would I want less of a chance at harvesting a deer, by implementing APR?

[ERdeerhunter]

I think it should the other way around as I posted earlier. You should pay more if you want to shoot that small "trophy".

I like your idea better. It still protects young bucks, but doesn't completely eliminate them from the harvest if some people choose to do so.

[ERdeerhunter]

Truth is what horns, hard to focus on horns when areas no longer have horns and we're so beyond bringing back the 80's. My dad quit deer hunting because there are no horns anymore, I told him just hunt like everyone else in the section and blast anything and everything, go find tags and keep blasting. He said that's why there are no horns. He's right, we have yearling bucks doing 90% of the breeding in our section if alive and the few if any 2.5 year olds breed the rest if alive. Many are talking about dry does the few seen this year. Some years it must be close to 100%, we have 0 buck age structure and very few mature does are left to breed. Then all these shooters will blame the DNR for poor numbers. There is 1 shootable buck for nearly 25 of us to hunt, so it's bumper bambiland or nothing basically, wintering herds behind my dads and at our neighbors no longer exist, the past 3 years 0 wintering herd, used to be 40 at the neighbors and 25-50 behind dads for decades, gone, long gone and we doubt they'll come back. New zone 2 trashed our deer herd. 1st year awesome many people took 5 deer and deteriorated to most parties in the area got 1 maybe 2 deer this season or 0. They literally got shot out, progressively, since zone 2 opened. Horns, our tagging system needs to be addressed so some of the game hogs maybe will take less deer for the rest of our sakes, if the DNR did a fly over in our section they'd cancel deer season as there were more deer around in 1971 when they closed it that year. Time to allow 1 tag, you fill it you're done, but people would still find tags protecting there's so there is no solution in some places in MN. If you're in an area like mine, it stinks to be me, it's game over.

Musky Buck, here is a quote of yours from the Season's Over/How was the hunt in your zone? on 11/21:

"Area 241 here mainly, hard not to be satisfied, # 1 muzzy area in the state and ranks generally as top dog of deer taken per square mile. I better be satisfied."

I often find myself confused by your posts, one moment you are bragging about your piece of land and the next moment you seem to be complaining about it. I don't think hunting can be too bad for a guy who doesn't shoot small bucks and hasn't filled a tag with a doe in 25 years.

[Jameson]

...Show me the facts that APR or any of that hogwash makes a herd healthier....

This is going to take a few posts.

First the definition of healthier:

healthier - improved in health or physical condition

[Black_Bay]

I could actually see this working if tried for a year or two, no more. Make an any-buck tag $50 and a big-buck tag $25. How to define a big buck I'm not sure, as it would very from area to area, but the idea has some merit.

Those purchasing the big-buck tag would have less opportunities (deer) to shoot, and be less likely to succeed, thus justifying the lower price.

By doubling the price of a license you would reduce the number of people dramatically that would even buy a license. I saw a report that the DNR did with fishing licenses and it said if they increases the fishing license by more than $5 people would stop buying licenses. At $7 quite a few more would stop and at $10 a large number would stop. Now imagine doubling the deer license and see how many people wouldn't buy a license.

[kern]

I'm pretty sure having a license allows you to "pursue" game, the definition of pursuit includes making drives and other things to help others shoot deer. I don't have the regs in front of me, but I have no problem with any of that, I just want the guy with the tag to be the guy pulling the trigger. If the current law would prohibit you from aiding your party in the pursuit of their own deer after you have tagged yours, then I would be in favor of changing that law. I hope that made sense, but I think it's legal to help others shoot deer as long as you have a license, tag or not, and if it isn't, it should be.

Yes as it stands right now but tell me if i'm mistaken but once you tag out on a buck, you are not a legal hunter. So "pursuing" game would then be illegal if you took away party hunting (again in a lottery area).

[ERdeerhunter]

By doubling the price of a license you would reduce the number of people dramatically that would even buy a license. I saw a report that the DNR did with fishing licenses and it said if they increases the fishing license by more than $5 people would stop buying licenses. At $7 quite a few more would stop and at $10 a large number would stop. Now imagine doubling the deer license and see how many people wouldn't buy a license.

That is the point. Increasing the price to harvest a specific section of the population would discourage some from hunting that population, thereby protecting that section of the population. Doubling the price obviously was just thrown out there as an example, the DNR would need to study at what price they could offer such a tag without losing revenue.

[james_walleye]

2 words for all of this. HORN PORN! Show me the facts that APR or any of that hogwash makes a herd healthier. A 1.5 year old has the same genes as a 5.5 year old. Does it matter at what point in his life he breeds? If you do not want to shoot a small deer, then don't. Pretty simple. But to change the laws so "your style" of hunting is "the right way" is B!@#$%^IT. I already have to draw for a doe tag, why would I want less of a chance at harvesting a deer, by implementing APR?

Just curious if you can explain why you don't think APRs should have been implemented in zone 3 when the majority of hunters are for some form of young buck protection. Just wanted to make sure you and other people know that this is the case. I know a lot of people who want to pretend that pro Apr people down here are some small vocal minority and that is completely false.

[Jameson]

How to measure if this year's herd is healthier than last year's herd? weight, antler development, and productivity per age group.

Records should be kept of the date and sex of each deer harvested and biological data on age, weight, antler development and productivity. Data from the yearling (1½ year) age class provides the most reliable indicator of a deer herd’s health. Source: http://www.clemson.edu/extension/natural_resources/wildlife/publications/fs34_whitetailed_deer.html

[jay83196]

Kern, don't you think we spend enough on licenses, I spend well over $100 in hunting licenses each year not including fishing. To be honest it doesn't seem like we get from the dnr what we already pay..maybe charge out of state residents for hunting/fishing like their states charge us.

[nonteepical]

Your theory is interesting, but it neglects to address a critical issue. The fact that hunter participation numbers are declining while the actual land mass is not. Sure, habitat acreage may be on the decline due to land development, but the whitetail deer has been shown to be extremely adaptable to said development. Since actual land mass has stayed the same, but hunter numbers have declined, doesn't that negate (at least in part) your assertion that land is being overcrowded due to subdivision of larger tracts of land and that, therefore, deer are not being given a chance to grow mature?

[nonteepical]

What are you defining as a button buck? I've always referred to a button buck as buck with no visible horns - and the hunter didn't know it was a male until they went to recover their deer.

I highly doubt too many can't tell the difference between a buck and doe. If they can't see from the top of their head there's some pretty visible evidence when you flip the deer over to field dress it.

[Jameson]

How do APR's, buck lottery, or other management strategies aimed at producing a herd with a more balanced sex ratio, and a well proportioned age structure make the herd healthier?

How a more balanced sex ratio makes for a healthier herd:

Herds with a far greater number of does than bucks result in not all the does being bred on their first estrous cycle. Simply, there aren't enough bucks to service them all.

productivity- late born fawn that were conceived at a late date are less likely to survive their first winter.

weight- bucks will be in rut for more time causing them to use much more energy than those in a herd where all the does are bred on their first cycle.

How a well proportioned buck age structure makes for a healthier herd:

The older, more mature and stronger bucks will win most of the battles and do the majority of the breeding. Inferior, younger bucks will be excluded from breeding except in a few lucky (for the wimp bucks anyway) instances.

weight- If the yearling bucks are excluded from breeding they will gain more weight.

....

I left out antler productivity as it seems to be a controversial mis-understood measurement.

....

To the people who want some form of buck management: I tried. Answering the question "How does APR's or other buck management result in a healthier deer?" is difficult. Give it a try. I know that I have seen the differences in herds with balanced/unbalanced sex ratios and good age structure with my own eyes, but explaining it to doubters who haven't is difficult.

[Jameson]

...Since actual land mass has stayed the same, but hunter numbers have declined, doesn't that negate (at least in part) your assertion that land is being overcrowded due to subdivision of larger tracts of land and that, therefore, deer are not being given a chance to grow mature?

Hunter's numbers are not declining. The spots for deer to hide and get old are. Here is an old thread with some interesting facts: http://www.hotspotoutdoors.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/2078214/Historic_1918_2008_deer_inform

The one labeled 1918 - 2008 Deer Harvest Tables tells the tale.

[bottom-bouncer]

Kern, don't you think we spend enough on licenses, I spend well over $100 in hunting licenses each year not including fishing. To be honest it doesn't seem like we get from the dnr what we already pay..maybe charge out of state residents for hunting/fishing like their states charge us.

+1