Should muzzle loaders and bow hunters have the same antlerless regs?

[lakevet]

Muzzle loaders, until recently, could harvest does statewide same as bow hunters. Then the dnr put muzzle loaders under the same restrictions as regular firearms season.

Bow hunters and muzzle loaders had the same opportunity for many years with no problems as both were lower impact than regular firearms season.

Bow hunters have always harvested more deer and therefore put more pressure on the deer herd than muzzleloading.

Why shouldn't everyone have to apply for antler less permits?

Or why not let muzzle loaders follow the same harvest restrictions as archers. This makes the most sense to me since muzzle loaders take less than bowhunters.

lakevet

[Wanderer]

Because muzzle loaders have changed so much.

They're basically a single shot rifle that takes just a little more effort to load. The ML ranks swelled once the new in lines hit the market and people were able buy both a regular firearms license and ML license. You had to pick one or the other before.

Along your line of thinking, I would say this:

- ML can go back to either sex if it's taken back to being a person's only gun season.

- Archery should not be required to be a antlerless by permit only as long as crossbows aren't legalized as regular archery equipment for everyone across the board. If becomes that way, then yes, antlerless by permit only for archery too.

[lakevet]

I would like to see a things go back to one season one weapon, but too much in license dollars available for DNR to see that. Perhaps a muzzleloading only license restricting you to just that season in exchange for being able to harvest any deer.

Yes muzzleloaders have become basically like single shot centerfire rifles.

Fact still is that there are fewer muzzleloading hunters than bowhunters. They kill fewer deer and have lower % success than bowhunters. Thus less impact on herd. So why not manage them under the same rules as to what the hunter can harvest. To me that seems like common sense.

[Archerysniper]

I agree with Wanderer

[lakevet]

I agree with Wanderer

Archerysniper can you give a reason backed by harvest information rather than opinion why you agree? I want the DNR to manage based on sound science and facts as much as possible.

Here is the location of the stats I will be referring to: http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/recreation/hunting/deer/2012_harvest_total.pdf

I do not have numbers for 2013 so if you have them chime in with the location.

In 2012 deer killed per square mile was:

Regular firearms was 1.88 deer per square mile

Archery was 0.26 deer per square mile

Muzzleloading was 0.09 deer per square mile Thats 0.26 vs 0.09!

So Bowhunters killed 2.8 times more deer per square mile than muzzleloaders.

From 2009 to 2012 Archery success ranged from low of 17.0 % to high of 18.8%

During the same period muzzleloader success ranged from low of 11.3% to high of14.4%

Archery has a higher success rate of success at killing deer.

During the same period archery sales trended upward to high of 95,259 and muzzleloading trended down to 58,363.

Archery kill ranged between low of 20,444 and high of 22,057

Muzzleloaders ranged from low of 7,416 and high of 9,023

In absolute numbers archers kill more deer. An extra 13,000 deer on average each year. Year after year.

I am not attacking bowhunting.

Again, I am not attacking bowhunting.

I am saying the DNR is not setting regs based on logic and harvest stats, and are unnecessarily restricting muzzleloaders. Or they are allowing bowhunting more liberal regs than they should. That is what I get on reviewing harvest info.

This is the same dnr that allowed regular firearms kids (and archery kids) to shoot does without permits while restricting muzzleloading kids to buck only. This was in areas of low deer populations. To their credit they did reverse that regulation just this year so muzzleloading kids get equal opportunity to harvest. Just asking for the same in this situation. Consistency and fairness.

Lakevet

[lakevet]

Another stat from same link as cited above.

In 2012 bowhunters killed 12,942 antlerless deer.

Muzzleloaders killed 4,528 deer. Almost 2/3 LESS than bowhunters!!!

Again when trying to save does and build the herd do you place more restrictions on hunters who killed 4,528 antlerless or the group who killed 12,942?

DNR says restrict the ones who kill less and leave the ones who kill more alone.

Again, inconsistent and needs to be changed.

Numbers are saying the improvement in muzzleloaders is not a basis for making this management decision.

lakevet

[Jeff13]

I agree with Wanderer as well above.

12,942 does we're taken by archery in 2012. I'd believe that number would drop this year with the lack of bonus tags. I know guys who in years past were arrowing 4 does a season in certain areas. Or how many of those does are taken by archers in special park hunts, city hunts, or the metro?

I just think the number would have to drop considerably this year with a one deer limit in most of the state.

[Wanderer]

Thanks for the number crunching Lakevet. It's interesting to read.

Now how about we consider the number of hunter days per deer? Archery season lasts 3 1/2 months; ML lasts 3 weeks.

I also think the one deer limit is going to change a lot of the data.

[lakevet]

I agree with Wanderer as well above.

12,942 does we're taken by archery in 2012. I'd believe that number would drop this year with the lack of bonus tags. I know guys who in years past were arrowing 4 does a season in certain areas. Or how many of those does are taken by archers in special park hunts, city hunts, or the metro?

I just think the number would have to drop considerably this year with a one deer limit in most of the state.

I agree the number will drop for archery and muzzleloading. And muzzleloaders will still harvest much fewer total deer and fewer antlerless than muzzleloading.

I suspect that you are worried I am pushing for antlerless drawing/ buck only for archery. I am not. What I am saying is that stats so far, going back further than I have quoted have always shown muzzleloaders take much fewer deer and fewer antlerless than archery. My preference is to go back to muzzleloaders having the choice of harvesting any deer, just like bowhunters, due to the stats showing without question that muzzleloaders impact the deer herd way less than bowhunters.

Again, In 2012 bowhunters killed 12,942 antlerless deer.

Muzzleloaders killed 4,528 antlerless deer. Almost 2/3 LESS than bowhunters!!!

Also Jeff13 can you provide the stats to support your point about special hunts where archers kill extra deer? I believe those numbers are available on the DNR HSOforum. Then when you have the answer to your question about how many were killed in special hunts please post the answer for all to see.

Until then your point is speculation that may or may not be accurate. Let us know what you find out.

lakevet

[lakevet]

Thanks for the number crunching Lakevet. It's interesting to read.

Now how about we consider the number of hunter days per deer? Archery season lasts 3 1/2 months; ML lasts 3 weeks.

I also think the one deer limit is going to change a lot of the data.

Since Archery kills more deer by most metrics (deer kill per square mile, total deer killed, bucks killed, antlerless killed) are you saying we should shorten the archery season to lessen the impact on the herd, or that muzzleloaders, with a lower kill, lower % successful, etc should have the season lengthened to make it more fair? I am thinking you are not, and I would not support either idea of changing season length.

However, come Jan 1, archers will have killed far more deer, including antlerless, than muzzleloading. Thus muzzleloaders should be allowed to harvest any deer, whenever archery allows the same. (Obviously this excludes special city hunts and NE Minnesota areas with Bucks only for all including archery and youth).

lakevet

[Wanderer]

No, I'm not suggesting we shorten or lengthen the seasons in question; I'm just saying we should consider ALL the data. Another question I have: How many ML hunters hold another type of deer license each year? Could the numbers be skewed a bit due to many ML hunters afield already having deer and being more selective?

I do understand your point though, and would agree that if ML licenses were restricted more, either sex rules could apply as they have in the past.

[leechlake]

I do all three most seasons.

If the goal is to impact the harvest the easiest way is to restrict the regular gun season since that's where the big numbers are.

[lakevet]

Another question I have: How many ML hunters hold another type of deer license each year? Could the numbers be skewed a bit due to many ML hunters afield already having deer and being more selective?

Thanks for asking question.

First, if you would like to research that and present the numbers that would be great. I would like to see those.

Second, if those factors are present they are already factored in and taken into account in the stats I have presented above. And those hunters, if as you suggest, are more selective and therefore less likely to kill an antlerless deer.

Interestingly the muzzleloader harvest of deer DROPPED when the DNR opened it up to regular firearms hunters to purchase both licenses and hunt both seasons.

[Bear55]

I think wanderer covered everything I was thinking. I will say at this point I'd be more in favor of restricting archery hunters vs easing the regs for muzzy hunters.

[Wanderer]

First, if you would like to research that and present the numbers that would be great. I would like to see those.

OK, here goes... My numbers are "close" due to using 2014 calendar hunting days calculated against 2012 harvest numbers. My time is limited so this is what you get.

First, we can figure 110 days for archery season with a total antlerless take of 12,942 and 16 days of ML with a total antlerless take of 4,528.

The hunter days/antlerless are: (numbers are rounded)

- Archery = .008 days/antlerless deer, OR 118 harvested per day of the season.

- ML = .003 days/antlerless deer, OR 283 harvested per day of the season.

Second, the number of single license holders:

- The total number of Archery ONLY license holders is 32,495 out of 102,276, or 32%.

- The total number of ML ONLY license holders is 6989 out of 59,384, or 12%

Hypotheticals:

Revert to having to choose ML as your only gun option: 12% participation at same antlerless kill rate (60%) = 543 antlerless taken in the season.

Change either sex for Archery ONLY license holders: 32% participation at same antlerless kill rate (58%) = 4141 antlerless taken in the season.

Pick which set of data supports supports your case the best.

The part I picked up on is that (as TOTAL licensees) ML hunters harvest antlerless deer at more than double the rate archery hunters do for the time they're in the field when either sex is an option.

[lakevet]

Thanks for crunching the numbers.

Seasons vary in length as one way to manage harvest. Up north has 16 day regular firearms season and southern zones have shorter seasons. Length of seasons very unlikely to change. Who does or does not need antler less permits is much easier to change. That makes deer kill per day an interesting discussion, but it is about an option that it very unlikely to happen.

The initial post was that it is inconsistent to restrict antler less opportunity in a season that always takes much fewer antlerless deer (and stable to decreasing license sales) and have more liberal regulations for a season that kills more antler less ( and has trend of increasing license sales).

Based on that it would clearly be that since archery harvests more antler less deer, that the restriction on archery you propose would be the choice for consistency and fairness. It would bring the antler less harvest of archery into the same range as muzzleloading. Both in the 4,000 range.

Other option restricts muzzleloader harvest down to 543. While I would choose muzzleloading only license, as would my relatives., it still is inconsistent to restrict the season that has the lowest impact on the deer herd of any season, while a higher impact season has more liberal regulations.

Your hypotheticals propose reducing the more successful and higher antlerless kill archery season by 68% and the lower impact muzzleloading kill by almost 90%(88%). This still has the thinking that while harvest numbers show archery killing more deer than muzzleloaders, stricter regulations are needed on muzzleloaders.

Again this is inconsistent. It is similar to if archery hunters had to apply for antlerless permits and regular firearms hunters could shoot either sex.

[BLACKJACK]

Why make more rules for a problem that doesn't exist??

The number of deer that ML and archery hunters kill doesn't impact the deer population anywhere close to what the firearms harvest does.

Looks to me like you're either trolling or else you're a disgruntled ML hunter.

[lakevet]

Why make more rules for a problem that doesn't exist??

The number of deer that ML and archery hunters kill doesn't impact the deer population anywhere close to what the firearms harvest does.

Looks to me like you're either trolling or else you're a disgruntled ML hunter.

Think about your statement. Does having the same antlerless regulations for archery and muzzleloading create more regulations? No, it removes some newer added regulations that are not supported by facts. I am saying we should repeal extra regulations added recently and go back to fewer regulations. It reduces antlerless rules for good reasons, they are not needed from a harvest management perspective and unfairly restrict one type of hunters opportunity who impact the herd the least of any season..

Yes I could be described at times as a disgruntled muzzleloading hunter. Hopefully for good solid reasons supported by facts. For example, I complained when kids in the regular firearms season could shoot does while in the same area muzzleloading kids were bucks only. Inconsistent, unfair and unnecessary EXTRA regulations. Not claiming it was due to me, but this year the DNR removed that extra regulation and muzzleloading kids could shoot either sex again. Fewer rules, restoration of youth hunter opportunity, and no significant impact on deer herd. A good move by the DNR.

I repeat I am for repealing an extra regulation regarding muzzleloaders applying for antlerless permits. It would return to having things simpler, not more complicated. It would not have a significant impact on the deer herd, as shown by many years of harvest data from before this new antlerless regulation was added.

I am glad you stated that muzzleloading and archery impact the herd far less than regular firearms. I agree. So what is wrong with RETURNING to having muzzleloading, which impacts the herd the least of all seasons, being under the same rules as archery? Please use facts to support your point of view, or simply say "In my opinion"

Thanks for the respectful discussion.

lakevet

[KenM1987]

Move the firearm season out of the rut. Solves everything.

[BLACKJACK]

Everything written on this forum is opinion, you have to take everything written with a grain a salt, is it believable, does it pass the smell test, is the poster a rabble-rouser or has he written some good, informative posts in the past. Even when someone pasts 'facts', you wonder how accurate they are, did they manipulate them, plus next thing you know, someone is posting 'facts' that prove the opposite.

Back to the original question, I say no to the same regs because muzzle-loaders have changed, they're not the true primitive weapon that they were in the past, they're basically a one shot rifle with accurate ranges out beyond 100 yards. Bows, even compounds, are only accurate out to about 30 yards, except for a few exceptional, well-practiced shooters.

[lakevet]

Back to the original question, I say no to the same regs because muzzle-loaders have changed, they're not the true primitive weapon that they were in the past, they're basically a one shot rifle with accurate ranges out beyond 100 yards. Bows, even compounds, are only accurate out to about 30 yards, except for a few exceptional, well-practiced shooters.

Effectiveness of weapon is only part of the equation. A higher kill happens in archery season because you have a longer season that opens first, with a deer herd that has been undisturbed for over 8 months, warmer weather for longer sits on the stand, more daylight deer movement, and having anywhere from 100,000 to 200,000 more deer in the woods because you are before regular firearms season.

Again past history show that even with modern muzzleloaders, the archery season is still way more successful at killing deer. And going back to having bowhunters and muzzleloaders have the same harvest opportunity regarding antlerless deer makes sense.

lakevet

[Wanderer]

Serious question lakevet; why don't you take up archery then?

[lakevet]

Thanks for asking. It would have to be a family decision. We have discussed doing so, but older relatives trying to take up bow hunting in sub zero weather has been a deterrent. We hunt late season because it allows us to practice our over century long family style of hunting involving tracking, still hunting and driving deer in a low deer density wolf pressured part of northern Minnesota our ancestors homesteaded. It is amazing how addicted the kids get very quickly to this style of hunting. The skill set they develop is not common in their generation. Compass knife matches gun good wool clothes and your brain against the elements and the deer. There is a "survival" aspect to hunting at below zero temps sometimes 2 to 3 miles from any type of dwelling or traveled road. Some is on family farms. Having the 7th generation starting this year was fun. We quit the regular season decades ago because tracking a deer any distance usually ended with a gut pile under someone else's stand. Make a drive and it sounded like a war in the surrounding area. So our style of hunting is not compatible with regular firearms season. And again some of the older family members would quit due to difficulty of adapting to archery in sub zero weather. Suspect most bow hunters in December are not over 70 years of age. We have hunters that have been in their 80's in sub zero with muzzleloaders. Early season bow hunting would be a default, if we have to type of option, but not the same experience as winter hunting.

But this is a different issue. The original idea of the post still remains. Bow hunters are more successful and kill more antler less consistently, but have more liberal rules regarding antler less harvest. Muzzleloaders kill far fewer antler less and have a lower success rate but have stricter rules. This is unfair, inconsistent and unnecessary. Simplify the regs so both seasons have the same antler less rules. That worked for many years with no issues, even with increased muzzleloader hunter numbers and improved technology. The kill stayed low. Both seasons having the same antler less option would lessen regulation, and return hunter opportunity without adversely impacting the herd.

[wally243]

NO Pretty simple. Just cause you put yourself in the minority you think you need special privileges????? That is exactly what it sounds like to me and yes bow hunters should draw for doe tags as well. Not sure who would think they are entitled to a doe tag because they have a different weapon than the others.

Thanks

[laker1]

As a muzzle loader,at present they should have to draw for a doe permit if that zone needs it.

Bow hunting they should not have to if their is a lottery,unless you also want youth permits to be also cut back. I think once you reach 16 you should have to get in the drawing like everybody else. Some zones the youth kill makes up over 50% of the total anterless kill. Is it too high than,I don't know?

If zones do show the anterless kill is like equal to the gun kill by lottery than yes restrictions should take place. But everybody can bow hunt so it is not like you can't go bow hunting if you want a anterless.

[Wanderer]

Lakevet,

I really do appreciate the style of hunting you're trying to preserve and hand down to your younger generations. My favorite way to hunt the ML season is in fresh snow and from the ground as well.

Being from the north country, you must be close to the area of the state where not even archers were allowed to harvest does in 2014. Not even kids. Sometimes the rules have to change a little but that doesn't mean they'll stay that way forever. I hope your older family members still enjoyed their hunt this past season.

My position still hasn't changed though.

Unfortunately you ARE in the minority with your style of hunting these days, meaning ML only with an aging core group, hunting exclusively from the ground and trekking for miles on foot in search of game. There really aren't that many places you can even hunt that way south of you in this state. Know you're blessed and hope the deer population rises enough to get your wish. In the meantime you can talk to your Legislators about making the change back to a more pure ML season. You'll have my support if it goes back to the ML ONLY option.

[ozzie]

I don't understand Wanderer why one has to choose their weapon to hunt with when one can still only take 1 deer in many parts of the state? I haven't archery hunted yet but I may start and if I haven't taken a deer with my bow then I buy a gun tag and if I don't shoot a deer with that weapon I pay another $31 and buy a muzzy tag...in the end I still (if lucky enough, wasn't this year) would harvest 1 deer. Are you more worried that a person like myself may shoot a deer with a bow and now can party hunt with the other two weapon seasons? In that case I think your issue would be more with party hunting. I personally think the bow season options and the muzzy season options should be similar as once it comes to muzzy season the hunting is really hard with deer on edge and seasonal elements for the time of the hunt opposed to bow hunting 1/4+ of the year.

[Wanderer]

Ozzie,

My posts probably read that I have I real strong view on this, but I'm not really that concerned. I roll with the regulations as they fall for the most part, without significant issue. This thread has been just a conversation from my point of view, no big point trying to be made from my side.

My opinion is based on the idea the State took out the either sex privilege from ML hunting when it became such a popular defacto "Last Chance" for regular firearms hunters. Many people make plans to hunt the ML season at the last minute depending on schedules and the success, or lack of, during the regular firearms season. The State seems to want to control that appetite when it comes to antlerless harvest.

As for party hunting, if every ML hunter could still tag either sex and party hunt, I can imagine the harvest would increase to levels the DNR would rather avoid, especially in "Recovery" years. How many times do you hear hunters say they hold out for a NICE one till the end, then tag a doe so they have something? If everyone wants something, do they need 5 friends helping dust some of the late winter doe population so they can have "theirs" and their buddies can shoot another for the fun of it?

I know that some folks don't see any issue with that at all, and I've been one of them in the past. My comments are based on the 2014 regulations though and what the DNR is trying to accomplish for herd rebuilding. Maybe the rule will change again and soon, I don't know... But I do know it'll take something more significant than that to get me to the steps of the Capitol to protest.

[92python]

The thing about analyzing this link to the deer harvest data is you need to look into each area and dig a bit deeper. Some areas don't allow much in the way of hunting other than archery. Example - Zone 601 accounted for about 1800 archery antlerless while on muzzleloader accounted for 68. Why? Because there are very few places to muzzleloader hunt in that area. Take that delta of over 1700 off the total antlerless deer taken via archery vs muzzy as bowhunting really is the only option in that area.

Try adding in the number of days hunted per hunter and I bet the archery numbers are higher than the muzzleloader numbers. They are for the people that I know and hunt with at least. Also - there are more archery licenses sold that muzzleloader licenses. These factors all account for more deer taken by archery.

Back to the question - I think they should manage the doe harvest in the hunt areas separately and by weapon as this isn't a one size fits all state.

I would like to see an antlerless muzzy season for more areas but understand building the herb back up too. I didn't even buy a muzzy tag this year because the area I would have hunted required a antlerless permit which I didn't have and I had plenty of deer and elk meat in the freezer.

[92python]

I also question the accuracy of the data from the DNR link. Take a look at table 10....No way was there only 2 deer taken between hunts 972-974.

What other data is wrong??