Lowering our Low Expectations

[PurpleFloyd]

Taking the pitch? Nice try. I am carping about the guy who over shoots the herd like they're riding a train through a herd of buffalo. How many times do we have to learn that lesson?

I'll say again, I'm less Pro-APR than I am Anti-Anti-APR. What I really am is Pro-Management for better outcomes. And yeah, that means not having a Voruca Salt attitude about public resources.

I DO believe Sportsmen were the first true conservationists and the future is in our hands. Moderation and sustainability will benefit everyone in the long run. It's like saving for retirement.

I understand that point and if that is really your goal then I have no problem with it. If they are getting that hammered then would you be on board with the DNR closing areas that have too few deer to hunting period until they rebound? And when they open if the manage bucks are you OK with putting a limit on the TOTAL number of bucks harvested to control the population and not just on the size of the rack to cater to a segment that wants it easier to shoot a trophy? because that is something that would make sense if the numbers are too low.

[Jameson]

...If you fail to understand that making it legal to shoot a deer with 7 points but not with 8 isn't really managing a resource for any biologically sound reason but rather for personal satisfaction reasons then I would look very hard in the mirror next time one steps in front of you.

In your small vacuum of a world their are two bucks then, one 7 pointers, one 8 pointer. A)If the hunter shoots the 8, that leaves the 7 to live on. B)If the hunter shoots the 7, that leaves the 8 to live on. C) If both bucks get shot, the only bucks around next year will be new ones.

Rank them. What scenario puts the deer herd in the best shape for next year. Please don't include the hunter's opinion in this. It is simply a biological question, not a social one. BAC? We currently have C. Settling for A is still seen as a biological improvement.

[Jameson]

I understand that point and if that is really your goal then I have no problem with it. If they are getting that hammered then would you be on board with the DNR closing areas that have too few deer to hunting period until they rebound? And when they open if the manage bucks are you OK with putting a limit on the TOTAL number of bucks harvested to control the population and not just on the size of the rack to cater to a segment that wants it easier to shoot a trophy? because that is something that would make sense if the numbers are too low.

I would be. But you have got to get the ag folks to go along with it.

[mntatonka]

I would be. But you have got to get the ag folks to go along with it.

So now you want the farmers livelihood to suffer so you can have an easier time shooting deer?

[TruthWalleyes]

We currently have C.

Yet big deer are shot every year. Amazing.

[PurpleFloyd]

Here is a good article from a couple years back, but given the situation of deer hunting in MN, I doubt that any of this information has changed that much.

MN Deer Hunting

Lots of interesting facts, such as 87 percent of bucks in MN never make it past 2 1/2 years old. Only 2.5% of hunters are from out state. Compare that to Iowa which is at 19%That right there means Minnesotans are destroying Minnesotas deer herd. Although the article is written about the economical effects, it hits a lot of good points.

My carpool buddy was telling me on the way to work this morning that he was in a wedding with a guy who lives in South Central MN. So far this year, his party has shot 29 deer and are planning on taking more during the muzzy season. Their goal is to wipe out as many deer as possible cause they eat his corn fields. That mentality is no worse than herding them up to take to a slaughter house. Just plain stupid in my opinion.

APR's don't fix that because a 2.5 YO deer will except for isolated cases meet the point total and they will just wipe out all of the 2.5 year olds instead of the 1.5 year olds and the same number of 3 year old and up deer will remain.

[B. Amish]

Yet big deer are shot every year. Amazing.

+4968

[B. Amish]

APR's don't fix that because a 2.5 YO deer will except for isolated cases meet the point total and they will just wipe out all of the 2.5 year olds instead of the 1.5 year olds and the same number of 3 year old and up deer will remain.

let's not kid ourselves either. 110-140" bucks will eventually bore the apr guys. what they'll want next is for people to pass the 150" so they can have a shot at a booner.

[MUSKY18]

If the day ever comes in MN when we are all getting bored by seeing 140" deer, then some type of program would have been instituted to bring our herd back to where it has the potential to be at.

I'd also be willing to bet that if there were 140" deer running all over the state, this discussion probably wouldn't be happening.

[Gordie]

If the day ever comes in MN when we are all getting bored by seeing 140" deer, then some type of program would have been instituted to bring our herd back to where it has the potential to be at.

I'd also be willing to bet that if there were 140" deer running all over the state, this discussion probably wouldn't be happening.

I bet it would because to many of them would be shot and not everyone would fill a tag.

Yes we have a lot of hunters and if everyone tags out guess what NO more deer. someone has to not fill a tag that a fact it happens. yet each and every year this debate goes on the herd is being destroyed so lets manage for a mature bucks, age class what ever you want to call it. Someone will ALWAYS NOT be happy with the outcome period.

Big is better mentality is media driven and if you don't believe that then why do have high fence hunting so some so called sportsmen can hang a trophy on the wall.

I had enough of this and tried of the picture always being painted black time to add some color and I think I'll start with the color red.

[flipper]

I for the life of me cannot figure out what makes some think all people in Minnesota should manage their farms and their wooded land so that the deer herd is where some fanatics think it ought to be. (and then they call people "stupid" who don't agree with them).

Some story about a hunting party who shot 29 deer in south central Minnesota! (and they can't wait until muzzie season to get many more)Must be some huge hunting party since the limit here in south central is 1 deer.

I like deer and I like hunting them but I also realize how destructive these "corn rats" can be both on agriculture and our limited woodlots. Deer are very adaptable to man, that's why there are more deer in Minnesota now then there were 30, 40, or 100 years ago.

The challenge the DNR has is to strike a balance between the desires of the hunters and the needs of the farmers and others. I really don't think the job they are doing is as bad as many of you disgruntled hunters think. If anything they are caving in too much to the horn porn guys the way it is.

[mntatonka]

Lots of interesting facts, such as 87 percent of bucks in MN never make it past 2 1/2 years old. Only 2.5% of hunters are from out state. Compare that to Iowa which is at 19%That right there means Minnesotans are destroying Minnesotas deer herd. Although the article is written about the economical effects, it hits a lot of good points.

There is not, and never has been, any data that backs up the claim that a majority of any class bucks are getting shot. The ONLY data ever taken was from a state park hunt with limited participants.

As for wanting more out of state hunters, the question I have is why? So many people here are complaining we don't have enough deer, and you want to bring more hunters in from out of state to hunt the already overhunted public lands? That makes perfect sense!

[mntatonka]

I for the life of me cannot figure out what makes some think all people in Minnesota should manage their farms and their wooded land so that the deer herd is where some fanatics think it ought to be. (and then they call people "stupid" who don't agree with them).

Some story about a hunting party who shot 29 deer in south central Minnesota! (and they can't wait until muzzie season to get many more)Must be some huge hunting party since the limit here in south central is 1 deer.

I like deer and I like hunting them but I also realize how destructive these "corn rats" can be both on agriculture and our limited woodlots. Deer are very adaptable to man, that's why there are more deer in Minnesota now then there were 30, 40, or 100 years ago.

The challenge the DNR has is to strike a balance between the desires of the hunters and the needs of the farmers and others. I really don't think the job they are doing is as bad as many of you disgruntled hunters think.

It's entirely possible they have crop damage tags, in which case they have a legitimate reason to significantly reduce the herd in that area.

[Bear55]

I do everything i can on my 100 acres of land to benefit wildlife,deer in particular, so when the DNR puts out to many tags for years, and uneducated (stupid)hunters kill as many deer that the DNR allows (when the deer population dosen't justify the tags) so they can "fill out", your saying I'm to blame, and i should sell my property and scout for new land and hope the neighbors are conservation minded?

What I am saying is if you aren't completely happy with your hunting situation change it, spinning your wheels hunting the same stands over and over isn't going to fix anything. Keep your land and try somewhere else for a while, it might be fun and you just might get a surprise when you get back to your land and see more deer. Biggest problem private land hunters have is they hunt their land too much, I know that is why you bought it but your not doing yourself any favors pressuring the deer. Let your neighbors do that and you might find better hunting on your 100 acres.

[walleye18]

Bear55...your right in your post.

We have private land that we hunt near the Pequot Lakes area....total of 319 acres.

Food plots and limited pressure make things interesting/good for us - and deer hunting.

Not as many deer as say 5 yrs ago due to our area being an intensive harvest area and one could take 5 deer during the gun season....some people did - and now the population is way lower.

Biggest thing we have going for us is the food source - and limited pressure. Our neighbors adjacent to our land shoot deer but really pressure their property...IMO way too hard. If its brown, its down is their mentality - and its ok. They have the right to do that.

We see more deer and bigger bucks by and large as the "girls" stay more to my place than theirs...food, security, less pressure, etc... They have no food plots and pressure the hec out of their property.

Point being, there are many factors that influence the deer population/amount of deer in a given area. One year, we had lots of deer around. It was the peak of the rut. Lots of does in estress and the bucks were all over the place. That year, we saw 11 different bucks in 4 days. Biggest was a "booner" that was later found with an arrow in it. There was only 2 of us hunting that year...my wife and me.

Just like in fishing...there are good spots that produce fish all the time - if the bait is and conditions are right....If the fishing spot gets pounded and pressured, the population goes down for that spot...its just like deer hunting. They (the deer) will be there if the food, security and needs of the animals are met.

[SmellEsox]

I don't think he meant that he wanted more non-resident hunters. Just that the low number of NR hunters we have is a sign of an undesirable deer herd to said NR hunters.

[SmellEsox]

There is not, and never has been, any data that backs up the claim that a majority of any class bucks are getting shot. The ONLY data ever taken was from a state park hunt with limited participants.

As for wanting more out of state hunters, the question I have is why? So many people here are complaining we don't have enough deer, and you want to bring more hunters in from out of state to hunt the already overhunted public lands? That makes perfect sense!

If the majority of yearling bucks were not getting shot, no one would be complaining about a lack of bigger bucks.

[Wanderer]

I understand that point and if that is really your goal then I have no problem with it. If they are getting that hammered then would you be on board with the DNR closing areas that have too few deer to hunting period until they rebound? And when they open if the manage bucks are you OK with putting a limit on the TOTAL number of bucks harvested to control the population and not just on the size of the rack to cater to a segment that wants it easier to shoot a trophy? because that is something that would make sense if the numbers are too low.

Yes.

[mntatonka]

If the majority of yearling bucks were not getting shot, no one would be complaining about a lack of bigger bucks.

People complain because they hear a small group of people saying the majority of yearling bucks are getting shot. Do the math. It's simply impossible for Minnesota's hunters to shoot the majority of the yearling bucks every year.

[Bear55]

People complain because they hear a small group of people saying the majority of yearling bucks are getting shot. Do the math. It's simply impossible for Minnesota's hunters to shoot the majority of the yearling bucks every year.

Kind of agree with this, we can't shoot them all but its hard to do the math when we really don't know how many deer are out there. Like posted earlier, through peak and poor hunting seasons the deer have been at 1 million and the wolves at 3K. Those numbers worked in the 80's but come on, someone should have a better idea on the true population numbers by now. DNR can't be afraid to tell us the truth, tell us there was 500K deer in the mid to late 90's and triple that during the early to mid 2000's, we can take it.

[Lip_Ripper Guy]

APR's don't fix that because a 2.5 YO deer will except for isolated cases meet the point total and they will just wipe out all of the 2.5 year olds instead of the 1.5 year olds and the same number of 3 year old and up deer will remain.

I don't get too involved in the APR debate. But, I think we can (mostly) all agree that a 2.5 year old buck is generally smarter and more wary, than a 1.5 year old buck. So if a buck makes it to 2.5, it has a greater chance of surviving to 3.5 than a 1.5 year old does making it to 2.5. If this is true (which I think it is), the population of bucks should go up, as should the age and size.

[walleye18]

Cant crush and kill the 1.5 year olds and expect to have big bucks. Pretty simple.

Restraint on killing the "up and comers" is whats needed to get quality bucks in an area...pretty simple!

[Getanet]

Kind of agree with this, we can't shoot them all but its hard to do the math when we really don't know how many deer are out there.

What we do know is the number of bucks shot per licenses sold. For the firearms season here are the stats over the past few years:

2008 = 13.6% shot a legal buck

2009 = 14.3% shot a legal buck

2010 = 14.8% shot a legal buck

2011 = 12.7% shot a legal buck

Of course it doesn't break it down by age, but with these relatively modest totals it's hard to fathom we're shooting all the bucks in MN.

[Bear55]

Hard to say how many licenses per hunter as well. I buy an archery and rifle tag every year, sometimes muzzy too if I have the time. Not sure if they count bonus tags on there as well. Not easy to nail down any solid numbers.

[Bear55]

I don't get too involved in the APR debate. But, I think we can (mostly) all agree that a 2.5 year old buck is generally smarter and more wary, than a 1.5 year old buck. So if a buck makes it to 2.5, it has a greater chance of surviving to 3.5 than a 1.5 year old does making it to 2.5. If this is true (which I think it is), the population of bucks should go up, as should the age and size.

2.5's are a little smarter but they still run around like crazy during the rut and get shot without much trouble. The big change usually comes at 3.5 years of age, once they hit that mark the chances of them getting shot go down a fair bit. Every year after that they become much harder to kill.

However if you let a whole age class walk for one season there will be more of them around and more that make it to 3 year olds.

[Getanet]

I don't care how you try to spin it, to the non-hunting public putting the value of a deer by the number of points on it's rack is trophy hunting. Non-hunters can stomach the idea of hunting if it's purpose is for population control and food. They don't have the same stomach for trophy hunting, as Melissa Bachman is one example of:

http://news.yahoo.com/melissa-bachman-big-game-protest-161458798.html

To me, APR could bring an unnecessary fight to all deer hunters in MN.

[hockeybc69]

Quote:

What we do know is the number of bucks shot per licenses sold. For the firearms season here are the stats over the past few years:

2008 = 13.6% shot a legal buck

2009 = 14.3% shot a legal buck

2010 = 14.8% shot a legal buck

2011 = 12.7% shot a legal buck

Of course it doesn't break it down by age, but with these relatively modest totals it's hard to fathom we're shooting all the bucks in MN.

Here are total registered bucks. Those percentages paint a very different picture than the raw numbers.

2008 - 85,646 Total registered harvest - 221,837

2009 - 83,820 Total registered harvest - 194,186

2010 - 88,027 Total registered harvest - 207,313

2011 - 76,003 Total registered harvest - 192,331

And these buck harvest numbers do not include fawn bucks registered. Last I checked a buck is a buck regardless of age. So that puts the buck harvest at pushing 50% of overall harvest. A far cry from the 12.7% in the data above for 2011.

[Getanet]

Hard to say how many licenses per hunter as well. I buy an archery and rifle tag every year, sometimes muzzy too if I have the time. Not sure if they count bonus tags on there as well. Not easy to nail down any solid numbers.

I think you're dancing a little too much here. Page 6 of this PDF has harvest figures by zone, by license type:

http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/recreation/hunting/deer/2011_harvestreport.pdf

It also has the total Buck Harvest. 85,579 bucks were shot in total. Do you think that's 80% percent of all bucks in MN?

[SmellEsox]

APRs have been around for a long time and there is no more outcry now than when they started. There is more against APR w/in the hunting community than from non-hunters. In fact, I bet a lot of non-hunters and wildlife watchers would be interested in seeing more big bucks in nature.

mntatonka, I'd like to see your math that tells me it is impossible. In central MN there are 11 deer/sq mile pre fawn (supposedly. I think its lower). In my math, most of these are yearlings and a couple does and maybe a survivor buck or two. With a harvest of 6 or more deer/sq. mile, it is easy for me to reason that the majority of yearling bucks will die. Dumbest deer in the woods next to an orphaned or abandoned fawn.

[Musky Buck]

But get a net they realize the meat is consumed, I'm not sure how the roasts are going to be on the Bachmann lion ? Might be a little chewy, the drumsticks might be tough to cook to perfection. I would hope the anti's if they want to attack will attack fenced in unfair chase trophy hunts first before they come after the millions who hunt big game in the U.S.A. I say try to control your own with this topic, if deer numbers are low in your area don't shoot too many of them and if they are high you can take an extra deer or 2. Focus from your area out about 3-4 miles and scout that talk to some farmers on the road etc. and before season have a plan like none of us added a management doe tag because we weren't seeing much around, so then hopefully we'll see stronger deer numbers next fall a bit.