Buck Tag Applications??

[iamgmc]

It's all about the money! In a state where I can have more deer in my frezzer than I can walleyes or candian geese.In areas that have large tracts of land you can experiment with different management practices.Someone is way of course sating that are farmers don't help wildlife.Granted they're trying to get the most out every acre,as I'm sure most of try to do with your own business.Go to any wildlife banquet and see who recieving the awards for stewardship a farmer.I think in MN different zones shouild be managed differently,also duck seasons should be split into a north and south zones.

[lawdog]

I don't know if I ever responded to this topic, but for what its worth, I don't have a problem with the idea of drawings for buck tags in the right settings, or for that matter antler restrictions which I have also advocated at times. There would have to be other adjustments to make some of these changes work in Minnesota (e.g. eliminate a ridiculous two day season), but they could work, don't think for an instant that the way we do it now is the only way that can work for our deer. The people I know in North Dakota would not go away from their buck tag drawing system to go to ours, they think its just nuts what we do, so consider that when you say hunters wouldn't like it.

What I see over and over when anyone talks about any types of changes, be it QDM or this or whatever, is a "sky is falling" knee jerk reaction from everybody who doesn't want anything changed and "doesn't want anybody telling us how to hunt" (I always loved that one since the whole current scheme is regulated by someone telling you already...).

This is an interesting discussion and I'd just like to see everyone keep their minds open to new ideas and possible ways to make our situation better...

[lcornice]

Quote:

---

I've been waiting for the results, where did you find them? I looked on the DNR's site last week but didn't see anything.

I got the survey back in Nov. - Dec. sometime. It was called: 2005 DEER HUNTER SATISFACTION AND PREFERENCES FOR REGULATION CHANGES IN MINNESOTA

1. Limiting the number of Buck tags for the season.

2. Point restrictions.

3. Moving the Firearms season out of the rut.

4. The famous ‘ Earn a Buck ‘ scenario.

They also discussed party hunting some, to the effect of not being able to cross tag deer or tag anyone else’s deer, you could still hunt as a party just shoot your own deer.

They also had a few different scenarios for each situation. I've still got one of the booklets, I'll see if I can get it scanned in if someone wants to look at the questions asked.

Mike

---

Mike,

You're talking about a different survey. The one you got was a preference choice for regulation change. It went out to 6,000 hunters throughout the state. The antler point survey was just sent out to people who hunted in 5 west-central permit areas. It was only 3 questions and was done as a response to some legislation that was proposed last year. Those were the results that are in this weeks Outdoor News. The results of the survey you completed won't be available for a while.

Also, I think there's a bit of confusion between party hunting and cross-tagging. Nobody is trying to outlaw people hunting together (party hunting). The intent is to find out if people can live with shooting their own buck, which would be cross-tagging. Minnesota is actually one of only a few states that lets you (legally) shoot deer for each other.

I hope that clears it up.

[MN Mike]

Ok, that explains it, I'll have to wait. I don't get a chance to see every issue of Outdoor News so I probably missed the one with the other results in it.

I understood the party hunting and cross tagging thing, wouldn't bother me if it stayed or went away, our party does so little of the cross tagging it wouldn't matter.

Mike

[luckey]

Not that it's real hard to do, but now I'm confused. From what I read here, it sounds like the hunter surveys and meetings indicated we want to keep "party hunting". However, with that in mind someone want's to change the law to allow party hunting but not allow cross tagging. Whats the point! The whole reason behind "party hunting" IS cross tagging. Am I missing something here?

[Mark Christianson]

10000% the same thing going through my head luckey.

What did I miss?

[BLACKJACK]

The whole point behind party hunting is NOT cross tagging, its to allow hunters to hunt as a group, to enjoy the comraderie of group, etc. in the same area, and make deer drives if they want. A group hunting together is more effective - most times - than four people hunting alone. Without party hunting, the poster would only be able to shoot one deer, then watch the rest run by. With small areas to hunt and only a two days to hunt you may never see those deer again, they're off in the next section.

[Mark Christianson]

From the reg book:

“Party hunting”

means that members of a party may take animals for other members’

limits.

Isn't this cross tagging or am I mis-understanding what people are saying is cross tagging?

Still cornfused.

[JEV]

Quote:

---

From the reg book:

“Party hunting”

means that members of a party may take animals for other members’

limits.

Isn't this cross tagging or am I mis-understanding what people are saying is cross tagging?

Still cornfused.

---

I believe they are the same. But, here's the difference. You could still in fact have "party" hunting but no cross tagging. "Party" meaning you could hunt the same woods together, make drives together, etc. But, you could only tag a deer that you yourself shot. Many states do not even allow "party" hunting, that is making drives in a group. It is a solo mission. You hunt by yourself and tag your own deer.

JEV

[lawdog]

I think BLB is right, the general and common use of the term party hunting, and as Wisc. and MN use it is cross tagging. Not allowing deer drives is a completely different issue. No state that I've ever heard of eliminates hunting with a party and requires that you have to drive out separately and can't sit anywhere near somebody or something like that. The tagging is the issue, not how many or who is out there somewhere.

[shae1986]

Let me tell you this is a very confusing subject. But my thoughts on it are that cross tagging is probably not going away anytime soon. i have even compiled a few reasons why i beilieve that.

1. They tried no cross tagging or "party hunting" with the All season licence the first year it was available and that ruling only lasted that year.

2. Hard to enforce. Unless it is seen it would be difficult to tell who shot the deer. Yes you can look at the caliber of gun, but still very tough to tell. It would be one of the acts of seeing. Unless the CO caught a guy still hunting that didn't have any tags left, and maybe thats what they would be looking for, but in MN where you can shoot 5 deer, i dont know how big of a problem tags are.

3. The State of Minnesota wants more and more deer harvested because of there growing numbers. By taking away cross tagging people are more likely to not shoot that doe for there neighbor, or another one for there father-in-law.

I think the way for the more harvest of does in Minnesota is to either have a buck tag application (for it), antler restrictions (Very much for it) or earn a buck (not for it). Now the one i am not for is the earn a buck but really it wouldn't matter too much too me since i shoot the first dow that walks by with my bow.

I believe something has to be done to lessen the deer heard. I wish i could say what that was but i really dont know, I wouldn't mind seeing a longer bow season

Sorry i wrote so much, i hope you read it, i did put a little thought into it, and if you think i am totally off the wall with what i said, tell me, i dont mind the critisim.

Andrew Shae

[lcornice]

Quote:

---

I think BLB is right, the general and common use of the term party hunting, and as Wisc. and MN use it is cross tagging. Not allowing deer drives is a completely different issue. No state that I've ever heard of eliminates hunting with a party and requires that you have to drive out separately and can't sit anywhere near somebody or something like that. The tagging is the issue, not how many or who is out there somewhere.

---

Correct. The intent would NOT be to move away from people driving deer for each other or hunting as a group. The intent is to make you shoot your own buck. There's definitely a difference between hunting as a party and cross-tagging bucks for each other.

Sorry to confuse the issue, that wasn't my intent.

[Mark Christianson]

Thank you very much for taking time to post on this forum lcornice!

I know I appreciate it a lot. Good to hear factual info.

[lcornice]

Quote:

---

Thank you very much for taking time to post on this forum lcornice!

I know I appreciate it a lot. Good to hear factual info.

---

Not a problem. I like to keep people informed ... even if we don't all agree :-)

[B. Amish]

i say leave the deer hunting system alone, if you want trophy bucks keep on trying to influence your neighbors to let them grow and dont shoot little ones yourself. why have the dnr make that choice for everyone.

i have shot a grand total of 3 bucks in over ten years of hunting, my first one was a wounded basket, second and third went on the wall, i like the fact that it was my choice if i wanted to pull the trigger or release the arrow and not someone elses.

i say let the dnr focus on waterfowl and wetlands

[BLACKJACK]

Quote:

---

From the reg book:

“Party hunting”

means that members of a party may take animals for other members’ limits.

---

If its from the reg book, I stand corrected.

Let me try again. If it was strictly enforced that it was one tag, one deer, if you were hunting with a group, doing a drive, and shot and tagged a deer, you'd have to drop out of the drive. Party hunting allows you to continue hunting with your group, even though your tag has been filled. Yes, you can shoot and tag another deer - 'cross-tagging' - but if your group decides that everyone in the group shoots their own deer, party hunting allows you to hunt as a group even after you've shot your deer.

In the past, our deer hunting group has always said that that any youth hunters were going to shoot and tag their own deer, we weren't going to use their tag as an extra doe permit.

There have been some court cases where CO's have ticketed people that were several miles away from people in their party, had filled their tag, and yet still claimed they were party hunting. Not sure what the final resolution was.

With the DNR's desire to see more deer shot, I don't see party hunting being eliminated anytime soon.

[almostthere!]

Why buck lottery?

1. So a hunter may see more bucks roam by their tree stand: you know, like those hunting shows where the hunter is sitting in his tree stand and passes on big bucks after big bucks because their antlers are not above the 150 class.

2. Some areas of Minnesota really needs more mature bucks; so instead of asking the DNR to do a special buck lottery for those area, the hunters of the affected areas are asking for buck lottery for the whole state. "Why should our areas be the only ones restricted by this special lottery."

3. "I do not want to put the time into scouting and where I hunt (next to the road), I do not see any big bucks. Therefore, a buck lottery is needed so that in the future, should I be lucky enough to be drawn, I will see big bucks from my road-side stands."

4. Big bucks are the only trophies. The more big bucks we have around, the more trophies there are.

5. Who cares about the buck to doe ratio. Take all the does you want. We want to see nothing but antlers when we go "hunting".

6. People hunt deer for antlers only. The bigger the antlers, the bigger the bragging rights.

[lawdog]

Utter nonsense Almostthere! Your post adds nothing of value to a good thread.

[almostthere!]

Lawdog,

That is exactly what I think of a state wide buck lottery system. I know it will be good for some areas but to mandate a state wide system is just a lazy hunter's way of killing a deer for its huge rack. Bucks with monster racks are all around us in this state. If a hunter puts an effort into scouting/hunt, he/she will realize that we do not need a state wide lottery system.

Sorry, lawdog. This thread is just tooo funny. People here has been arguing this for the last two years and before that, it was QDM. And before QDM, it was "unethical" to shoot fawns, spikes, forkies, and baskets.

If a hunter do not see a trophy in a kill through fair chase, whether it be a big buck, small buck, fawn, or doe, then the person should join the game ranch scenario.

I know there are some good hunters out there who put their time into the hunt and come home with huge antlers year after year. If these hunters can do it, why do we need a statewide buck lottery system.

[xedge2002]

Hey Almost I never thought this thread would go this long but I guess a lot of people have an opinion on it. I agree I know of people who see and get big bucks every year but they also are able to hunt a lot of real good land in an agricultural area along a river. I would like to see it so that all of the smaller bucks don't get shot up. Most of the people who shoot small bucks are hunting for the meat and not the rack. That's why I would say to take a doe instead of a buck to let the bucks get bigger and be better trophies. Where I hunt we don't have a chance to see big bucks because people come out from the metro area to hunt WMA and will shoot anything that moves. It would also help to control the deer herd which is something the DNR has supposedly trying to do the last few years.

[almostthere!]

I truely hear what you are saying and I am all for localized deer management strategies, just not a state-wide buck lottery, but you should consider looking for a different area to hunt your big bucks. The people I mentioned earlier all hunt on public lands and they come home with big antlers.

I am a quality meat hunter. If given the chance, I will shoot a forky over a decent racked buck any day of the week.

[grizzald]

It's interesting reading everybody's opinion on this one. One thing we do have to remember is every area has different hunting pressue each year. My area get the crap hunted out of it, it's as simple as that. Bowhunting through muzzleloading. One thing the DNR could look at doing for better deer management in the low number areas is to cut the seasons lengths back, especially muzzleloading. Theres no reason why muzzleloaders should get a 16 day season. This is the time when deer start to heard up and such, and these hunters can sit on along trails and pick and choose what they want to shoot, and this is where a lot of your fawns and does (does which are prolly knocked up) get shot up. If anything have the muzzleloading during the regular firearm season. Also, there would be a lot less wounded deer running around and dieing if they did this. I quit counting this year how many fawns I heard of that got shot, it just boggles my mind that people complain about not having any deer around, especially "nicer" bucks, but yet they still shoot fawns because they have to shoot something otherwise the hunt was a failure.

[Gopher_Guy]

If people wouldn't shoot the first little buck that walks by we wouldn't have to worry about a buck lottery.

Fixing stuff is easy to say, almost impossible to implement. Here are some things that I think should be addressed -

1) get rid of party hunting. Minnesota is one of the very few states that allows party hunting. It's a lousy practice and should be eliminated. Missouri, ND, Nebraska, Texas, Michigan and a host of other states ban this practice. Yes, it would be difficult to enforce but at least the honest hunters would not do it. In fact, I think MN is one of only 3 or 4 states in the union that do not ban party hunting.

2) put antler restrictions on bucks, like PA has done. Last year I saw over 40 bucks. All but a handful were yearlings, I'd say about 30 of them were yearlings. Out of those 30 I'd say maybe 6-8 had at least 4 points on one side. A majority of the yearling bucks are 6 points or less. This would save so many young bucks.

3) encourage hunters to shoot does. what's the big deal about shooting a doe? I'd rather shoot a doe than a yearling or 2 year old buck any day.

4) get rid of gun hunting during the rut. Iowa, Ohio, Wisconsin, Kansas, Illinois, etc., none of them have gun hunting until very late in November or early December in the cases. Meanwhile, you have Minnesota where in the zone I hunt in (zone 3) you have a gun season running every single day from November 4th until December 10th this year, with the exception of a week off November 11-17.

I feel MN DNR is totally lost on deer management. Quantity, not quality is the goal here.

With party hunting, if you have a group of 10 guys that go out on opening day and they combine to shoot 5 deer you still have 10 guys going out the next day to shoot the remaining 5 deer. If you don't have party hunting there are only 5 guys out the next day, half the pressure.

Thirty years ago the deer herd here was small (dad still talks about the year in the early 70's when they didn't even have a season) so they implemented a lottery for does to encourage more bucks to be shot. It worked. At that time MN was #1 in both P&Y and B&C. Fast forward to now and MN isn't even in the top 10 anymore in either category.

[luckey]

Gopher Guy,

First of all, something must be “broken” before it needs “fixing”. I take it in your case, “fixing” means managing the deer herd the way you would like it done. I would agree with some of your fixes. For instance I agree there may be too much gun hunting time. Especially muzzle loader season. Today’s muzzle loaders are just as effective as most rifles and probably much more so than a shotgun. I think muzzle loaders should be treated the same as any gun as far as the season goes.

Advocating getting rid of party hunting contradicts with encouraging hunters to shoot more does. I would have a hard time shooting a doe (one of the 5 who did on opening day) knowing I was done hunting and had to sit on my thumbs for the next week. In this case I would pass on the doe and wait for a buck. Also, 10 guys out hunting can shoot a lot more does than 5 hunters.

You better check the facts about PA before using that state as a positive example of antler point restrictions. The latest reports indicate the deer herd has plummeted and the guy who came up with the plan has been run out of town. Rather than a point restriction, we should use age restrictions. I know this would be very difficult but when you shoot 3 or 4 to a side bucks, you will be shooting the very best of the 1.5 year old bucks. These bucks will never have a chance to pass on their superior genes to the next generation. Eventually we will get rid of all the bucks that develop these baskets at 1.5 years old and leave only the spikes and forks.

You also mention they did a good job 30 years ago in bringing the herd back and now need to change. Well going from a doe lottery (sometimes going 3-4 years without being drawn) to allowing up to 5 does to be taken in many zones seems to me to be a rather big change.

[tripper]

Maybe just maybe if the DNR was left alone to manage the herd we would have an over all healthy herd. Maybe if they were allowed to spend more time in the field studing the herd instead of having to be on capital hill listening to sportsmens complaints and taking directives from elected offcials based on votes. Meny of you are living in areas that never had any deer 40 years ago and now your complaining because you can't set on your back steps and shoot a record book buck. MN is not a Texas farm, never has been and never will be so quit trying to run it like one.

[shae1986]

I dont see the problem with wanting big bucks, and if we manage it there will be bigger bucks. Now the management has to come from landowners not the DNR. And I work hard to find bigger bucks, a lot of miles and a lot of pictures go into finding a harvestable buck, we are managing the land we currently hunt and i believe we will see an improvment in the next 5-6 years.

[almostthere!]

In managing a healthy herd of deer, one must be willing to bag some of the small bucks that show up. We all know that a healthy herd of deer is very similar to a healthy herd of elk; one bull to many cows. If we opt to let all the fawns and small bucks go by and shoot the does and Mr. Bigs (if one should show up), we will destroy the healthy herd and eventually be left with nothing. Shooting does and leaving small bucks and fawns will, in the short term, lead to huge population of bucks and we will be seeing 40+ bucks in one geograhical area per season. However, in the long term, either the buck and fawn population explosion will destroy the habitat (eating every bit of food available) and starve to death or we have harvested all the does that no new generation of deer will replenish the aging and dying deer population.

The DNR is doing a very good job managing our deer population. They are more knowledgible in this field then most common hunters.

[jlm]

That is sarcasm correct?

[luckey]

shae1986,

Believe me, you will not have to wait 5-6 years to see the change. It's more like 2-3 years. Good luck.

[shae1986]

I agree does have to be harvested and also that small buck do too, i shot a basket rack 8 pointer last year, small rack, deer was estimated to be 6-9 years old. It was one that i was happy to put down. I passed on 2 bigger bucks than the one i shot, but they were both 1.5 to 2 year olds. They should be nice bucks next year.

Andrew Shae