Expected worst Deer harvest in 20 years!

[smsmith]

  PurpleFloyd said:

Pretty simple concept. I am for the DNR and the rest of government being less restrictive while the big government liberal types feel that only government can protect us from ourselves. You are asking for more intervention than has been historically done and I am not going to support more government. I am more of a personal responsibility type.

Okay, so using your model if I personally want more deer on the landscape what is my responsibility to achieve that goal?

[PurpleFloyd]

  hockeybc69 said:

Where did wallhangers for all come from?

How about focus on the fact that deer hunting in MN could be much better and everyone would benefit.

I am not saying that 100% success is needed, but things are much different now.

Whats wrong with hunters getting to see a few deer?

The people that want to shoot anything get a better opp to shoot anything. The people that like to shoot bucks might get to shoot the bucks of choice. The people that want bigger bucks might get chances at more bigger bucks. Is there something wrong with that?

Oh now I see my flaw.... I said, "deer hunting in MN could be much better and everyone would benefit."

PF will then say,,,

who is everyone? Does everyone agree with you? bla bla.....

Why cant there be some happy medium? Lou Cornicelli has said a number of times that 200k-220k is the sweet spot for harvest... Well lets work to get there and stop the madness that every year we shoot less deer because of wind/rain/corn.

The wallhanger comment comes from those who over the season have stated that they saw deer,even bucks, but didn't harvest one because it didn't meet their standards. If you are hunting and a deer presents itself then what the h e double hockeysticks is the problem?

If you want bigger bucks, they are out there and there are massive deer pictures posted all over this forum.

If smsmith posts that he has had multiple deer pass his stand every year yet he has chosen not to harvest one because it doesn't meet his standards then I don't have a lot of sympathy. And to me the DNR has given him his opportunity. For those in areas where they saw zero deer, them I understand.

But I am amazed how you jump on anyone who says their particular area is fine and doesn't need more restrictions or government intervention.

[PurpleFloyd]

  smsmith said:

Okay, so using your model if I personally want more deer on the landscape what is my responsibility to achieve that goal?

define landscape. Is that your property, area, region or state?

[smsmith]

  PurpleFloyd said:

define landscape. Is that your property, area, region or state?

I'd prefer state, but let's go with deer management unit for sake of this discussion

[leechlake]

geez. Landscape is referred to as an in general descriptive word, doesn't mean zone, permit area, back forty etc.

Here's a question and I'm not a big fan of most hunting shows. Why do they rarely show a Minnesota hunt? It's all Kansas, Iowa, Illinois, Ohio, Dakotas, Canada... "Here we are a XYZ hunting productions, we're heading to Minnesota for a chance at a nice buck." I bet I could watch the three outdoor channels we get for the next month and see zero filmed in Minnesota.

[smsmith]

  PurpleFloyd said:

If smsmith posts that he has had multiple deer pass his stand every year yet he has chosen not to harvest one because it doesn't meet his standards then I don't have a lot of sympathy. And to me the DNR has given him his opportunity. For those in areas where they saw zero deer, them I understand.

That's good, because I'm not looking for any sympathy. I haven't undertaken involvement in MDDI for me, I did so because I think deer hunting in MN could and should be better for everybody here.

[smsmith]

  leechlake said:

I bet I could watch the three outdoor channels we get for the next month and see zero filmed in Minnesota.

I bet you're right...wonder why that is?

[Getanet]

  leechlake said:

Here's a question and I'm not a big fan of most hunting shows. Why do they rarely show a Minnesota hunt? It's all Kansas, Iowa, Illinois, Ohio, Dakotas, Canada... "Here we are a XYZ hunting productions, we're heading to Minnesota for a chance at a nice buck." I bet I could watch the three outdoor channels we get for the next month and see zero filmed in Minnesota.

Because we don't have many "ranches." Wait until the credits roll. I bet more than 75% of the time they thank a particular outfitter. Then visit that outfitters site and see how many thousands of dollars you would need to pay to harvest a buck from that property - typically based on how big the rack is.

Most hunting shows have as much to do with "reality" as the junk on prime time TV.

[smsmith]

  Getanet said:

Because we don't have many "ranches." Wait until the credits roll. I bet more than 75% of the time they thank a particular outfitter. Then visit that outfitters site and see how many thousands of dollars you would need to pay to harvest a buck from that property - typically based on how big the rack is.

Most hunting shows have as much to do with "reality" as the junk on prime time TV.

We don't? I think I saw something awhile back that MN has more deer farms than just about any other state.

Heck, I've got two "ranches" within a 20 minute drive of my place.

I'll agree that a good number of shows are filmed behind a high fence, but certainly not all of them. Plenty of those hunts are filmed on privately managed ground with no fences. Hunting can be just that good in states where DNR's work and communicate with landowners who are interested in managing their parcels differently than public lands are managed.

MO Dept. of Conservation is working with QDMA on developing plans for interested landowners. It is a jointly paid effort between MDC and QDMA.

[mntatonka]

  Getanet said:

Because we don't have many "ranches." Wait until the credits roll. I bet more than 75% of the time they thank a particular outfitter. Then visit that outfitters site and see how many thousands of dollars you would need to pay to harvest a buck from that property - typically based on how big the rack is.

Most hunting shows have as much to do with "reality" as the junk on prime time TV.

And because we don't bait. There's a LOT of those shows that just off camera there's a feeder that buck has been coming to for years, same time, every day.

[FISHINGURU]

  DaveT said:

Apparently you don't know that many people...

http://news.dnr.state.mn.us/2014/11/18/h...end/#more-15605

Well, like I said in the beginning of this thread the fact that there are less tags allowed to be filled in most areas there will automatically be less deer registered. This quote here in the exact link you posted sums it up nicely.

"This year’s lower harvest is by design because regulations were implemented to place more deer – particularly does – off limits to increase Minnesota’s deer population."

If almost every hunter in the state is allowed 2 (or more) tags last year but most are only allowed 1 tag this year what do you think will happen? That doesn't mean hunting was bad or there were less deer out in the woods.

[eyeguy 54]

I cant watch the hunting shows anymore. Too much is canned. We used to drive through a high fence operation in ND to get to my friends land. I don't care that big bucks are shot that way for big dollars but I dont think it should be called hunting. Just shooting. I walked up to more than one and took it's pic. lol I saw the normal amount of deer that I usually see while out bow hunting this year. 218 area.

[mntatonka]

  FISHINGURU said:

Well, like I said in the beginning of this thread the fact that there are less tags allowed to be filled in most areas there will automatically be less deer registered. This quote here in the exact link you posted sums it up nicely.

"This year’s lower harvest is by design because regulations were implemented to place more deer – particularly does – off limits to increase Minnesota’s deer population."

If almost every hunter in the state is allowed 2 (or more) tags last year but most are only allowed 1 tag this year what do you think will happen? That doesn't mean hunting was bad or there were less deer out in the woods.

but the DNR said that, so it's just an excuse for their poor performance!

[Getanet]

  smsmith said:

We don't? I think I saw something awhile back that MN has more deer farms than just about any other state.

Heck, I've got two "ranches" within a 20 minute drive of my place.

I'll agree that a good number of shows are filmed behind a high fence, but certainly not all of them. Plenty of those hunts are filmed on privately managed ground with no fences. Hunting can be just that good in states where DNR's work and communicate with landowners who are interested in managing their parcels differently than public lands are managed.

MO Dept. of Conservation is working with QDMA on developing plans for interested landowners. It is a jointly paid effort between MDC and QDMA.

A deer farm is completely different. You don't hunt a deer farm. They got by many terms...ranches, sanctuaries, private outfitters...Most of these shows try to sugar coat it with the disclaimer "fair chase." Yes, they are "privately manage grounds with no fences" but they are also extremely expensive to hunt and get reserved years ahead of time.

I quit watching those shows when I was a teenager because you could tell it was complete talk. Last show I remember they had nice bucks running all over in Michigan. The guy shot his beast, thanked his friends at The Sanctuary for the terrific hunt, roll credits. Want to know how much it's like to hunt The Sanctuary? Kind of like going to restaurant, you order a Gold Medal Hunt or a Silver Medal hunt. $12-20K for a Gold Medal hunt and $3,200 - 4,000K for Silver.

There's a reason it's called horn porn guys. I thought this was pretty obvious to most people here.

[FISHINGURU]

The thing I hate about hunting shows these days is it's all about the big giant buck. When I first started watching hunting shows it was all about teaching you things. They all slowly transformed into who can shoot the biggest bucks.

You can set any ol maroon in a stand where there are tons of monster bucks coming to an area frequently and have success. You take that same guy and send him out on his own and he's lost.

Anyone here could have walls of big bucks if they only hunted ranches and properties where they raise big bucks and set you up.

[smsmith]

So if a guy has a handful of mounts from 125"-150" or thereabouts he was hunting on expensive "ranches"?

[smsmith]

  Getanet said:

A deer farm is completely different. You don't hunt a deer farm. They got by many terms...ranches, sanctuaries, private outfitters...Most of these shows try to sugar coat it with the disclaimer "fair chase." Yes, they are "privately manage grounds with no fences" but they are also extremely expensive to hunt and get reserved years ahead of time.

There's a reason it's called horn porn guys. I thought this was pretty obvious to most people here.

I know of at least one deer farm within a 45 minute drive where people do indeed "hunt" (shoot is a better word IMHO) deer. Autumn Antlers (think they shot a "world record" fenced in deer last year there) is about 15 minutes north of me. They do indeed film some shows there.

Several shows air each year from an outfitter's place in IL. Totally fair chase hunts on that outfitter's land and land he leases. Anybody who wanted to book a week with that outfitter for next year could do so right now. It isn't "cheap" to go there and hunt, but it doesn't cost much more than a week on an Ontario fly in walleye/pike/laker trip.

I'm no fan of high fence hunts or GMO deer, but don't make the assumption that every hunt you see on TV takes place in the same setting.

[SmellEsox]

  PurpleFloyd said:

The wallhanger comment comes from those who over the season have stated that they saw deer,even bucks, but didn't harvest one because it didn't meet their standards. If you are hunting and a deer presents itself then what the h e double hockeysticks is the problem?

If you want bigger bucks, they are out there and there are massive deer pictures posted all over this forum.

If smsmith posts that he has had multiple deer pass his stand every year yet he has chosen not to harvest one because it doesn't meet his standards then I don't have a lot of sympathy. And to me the DNR has given him his opportunity. For those in areas where they saw zero deer, them I understand.

But I am amazed how you jump on anyone who says their particular area is fine and doesn't need more restrictions or government intervention.

Just curious what you think our herd would look like with no gov't regulation???

[nofishfisherman]

  smsmith said:

So if a guy has a handful of mounts from 125"-150" or thereabouts he was hunting on expensive "ranches"?

I think you already know that no one was saying that.

[Getanet]

  smsmith said:

I know of at least one deer farm within a 45 minute drive where people do indeed "hunt" (shoot is a better word IMHO) deer. Autumn Antlers (think they shot a "world record" fenced in deer last year there) is about 15 minutes north of me. They do indeed film some shows there.

Several shows air each year from an outfitter's place in IL. Totally fair chase hunts on that outfitter's land and land he leases. Anybody who wanted to book a week with that outfitter for next year could do so right now. It isn't "cheap" to go there and hunt, but it doesn't cost much more than a week on an Ontario fly in walleye/pike/laker trip.

I'm no fan of high fence hunts or GMO deer, but don't make the assumption that every hunt you see on TV takes place in the same setting.

Yeah, that's about the only one in MN. You can "hunt" a bunch of stuff there that aren't even native, including Red Stag and Mouflon Ram. Like I said, ordering off a menu:

Whitetail Deer "Package"

up to 149"- $3,250

150"-159"- $3,995

160"-169"- $4,995

170"-179"- $5,995

180"-189"- $6,995

190"-199"- $8,995

200"-219"- $10,995

220"-249"- $13,995

250"-299"- $18,995

300" up - Call for Pricing

We should be striving for more places like this in MN?

I didn't make an assumption that all are like that. I believe I said about 75%. It's sad that so many guys watch these shows, have no idea that these shows are filmed on these types of set ups, and think this is how "hunting" is supposed to be.

[smsmith]

  Getanet said:

We should be striving for more places like this in MN?

I didn't make an assumption that all are like that. I believe I said about 75%. It's sad that so many guys watch these shows, have no idea that these shows are filmed on these types of set ups, and think this is how "hunting" is supposed to be.

If you noticed...I said I'm not a fan of high fence operations or GMO deer. I also stated that taking a deer on such a place is not "hunting"...its shooting. So, we should all be clear on that...right?

I didn't see any percentage posted on your part, so if I missed it..my mistake.

I agree that too many guys watch too much hunting on TV (I do not watch any hunting or fishing shows anymore...too much product placement for me) and think that somehow their hunting should mimic what they see. However, I also take issue with guys who "poo-poo" hunters who take big bucks as always being some expensive proposition with an outfitter who takes care of everything except butt-wiping.

There are plenty of guys who have a lot of shoulder mounts on the wall who earned them the hard way. Buying a chunk of ground, spending time and money on developing it to its ultimate potential and putting in countless hours in a tree every year...so they can shoot a buck that makes them happy. Those guys shouldn't catch dump for hunting the way they choose...any more than the guy who is happy shooting the first legal deer they see.

I think it is a DNR's role to work with both of those ^^^ types of hunters to the best of their ability. That means being open to communication and the sharing of ideas. After all, don't both types of hunters pay the same amount for their licenses? If nothing else, a DNR should manage somewhere towards the "middle" so that all types of hunters generally remain "satisfied". Hunters are always going to complain...but managing toward the middle usually does a pretty good job of keeping hunter satisfaction around 65%.

[Getanet]

  smsmith said:

Those guys shouldn't catch dump for hunting the way they choose...any more than the guy who is happy shooting the first legal deer they see.

Guys don't catch dump for hunting the way they choose. They could sit in the stand twiddling their thumbs all season for most anyone cares. Guys catch dump when they want to push regulations that impact the way other people hunt.

[PropsterII]

"I quit watching those shows when I was a teenager because you could tell it was complete talk. Last show I remember they had nice bucks running all over in Michigan. The guy shot his beast, thanked his friends at The Sanctuary for the terrific hunt, roll credits. Want to know how much it's like to hunt The Sanctuary? Kind of like going to restaurant, you order a Gold Medal Hunt or a Silver Medal hunt. $12-20K for a Gold Medal hunt and $3,200 - 4,000K for Silver."

Wrong again, Sanctuary was high fence, not managed ground. Huge difference. And now you're against all outfitted hunts on managed ground? Good luck ever getting drawn or hunting some states if hunting with an outfitter is not "hunting". And I know plenty of people who saved, scrapped, or some that could easily afford it that have done outfitted whitetail hunts in other states and were blanked. Because managed ground with an outfitter is not really any diofferent than yours or Joe's private managed ground, and sometimes hunting is tough. I just think you need to be a little careful there in your description of ranches vs outfitters vs farms vs whatever, and not lump them all together.

[DaveT]

What I find interesting is that most hunters in MN (evidenced by commenters in this thread) are so accustomed to poor deer hunting that the immediate assumption they make when watching people on TV shoot mature bucks is that it's a canned hunt. It's not conceivable to them that in other states wild mature bucks exist in quantities that seeing one is not a "once in a lifetime" event, but rather a "once a week" event.

[Getanet]

  PropsterII said:

I just think you need to be a little careful there in your description of ranches vs outfitters vs farms vs whatever, and not lump them all together.

Fair enough, I should be more careful with terminology. But the fact remains the majority of these hunt shows are filmed on very large, expensive properties to hunt where the deer herds are meticulously managed for large bucks. It's not a slam dunk you're going to shoot a monster, but you're paying through the nose to increase your odds of it happening.

Those details are conveniently left in the fine print and most people eat it up, thinking that is how hunting is everywhere for the average joe in whatever state they are.

[Getanet]

  DaveT said:

What I find interesting is that most hunters in MN (evidenced by commenters in this thread) are so accustomed to poor deer hunting that the immediate assumption they make when watching people on TV shoot mature bucks is that it's a canned hunt. It's not conceivable to them that in other states wild mature bucks exist in quantities that seeing one is not a "once in a lifetime" event, but rather a "once a week" event.

What are some of your favorite hunting shows? I would be surprised if most episodes aren't filmed at a location where a person would have to pay thousands for the same hunting experience. Very few shows are filmed on public land, I know some are, but they are the minority.

Hunting with a guide or outfitter is not wrong or makes someone less of a hunter, but it's certainly not an experience that public wildlife agencies should be aiming to provide.

[RK]

Been following along on this discussion for a while...

It's always seemed to me that managing deer seems to have the same challenges as managing northern pike on the fisheries side.

To one person they're a trophy species, and they're willing to accept lower density and lower success rates, and things like tighter harvest restrictions and lottery tags if it means creating the conditions for a chance at a trophy animal.

To others, they're a consumable species, and what they desire is a higher chance to shoot a deer - any deer. An opportunity for a trophy is a minor consideration if it's a consideration at all.

Add to that pretty vast differences in habitat, weather, new environmental factors like the reintroduction of a large predator, hunter and human density, plus the infamous 'social considerations' like crop damage and car insurance costs of hit deer, etc., and it gets to be a pretty complex picture pretty fast.

I don't have an opinion on whether or not they're doing the right thing or not - I don't know enough about deer management to have a credible one. But I do worry that the gap between the trophy hunter and the consumption hunter is getting wider and wider, and that inevitably leads to conflict.

[hockeybc69]

However, the DNR identifies lakes with too few or too many pike and makes adjustments to those lakes... they dont change the entire county or regions limits to deal with isolated hot or cold pockets.

Fisheries somehow does its best to manage areas of concern. Why cant Wildlife use the same techniques rather than taking an entire permit area and making it Intensive because a small portion of the area is overrun with deer? Or make and area HC, when there are pockets overrun with deer and the hunters are tied down on their ability to take some extra deer out where needed?

[mntatonka]

  hockeybc69 said:

However, the DNR identifies lakes with too few or too many pike and makes adjustments to those lakes... they dont change the entire county or regions limits to deal with isolated hot or cold pockets.

Fisheries somehow does its best to manage areas of concern. Why cant Wildlife use the same techniques rather than taking an entire permit area and making it Intensive because a small portion of the area is overrun with deer? Or make and area HC, when there are pockets overrun with deer and the hunters are tied down on their ability to take some extra deer out where needed?

they do in a very small extent, in the highly overpopulated areas they've been doing trials of partial permit areas of early antlerless.

Like I said earlier today though, it seems like they'd benefit by redrawing permit areas to take those pockets into account.

[B. Amish]

because lakes have public access. the hotspot of too many deer is probably private. they can't make anybody pull the trigger.