doe havesting

[billiam]

Does anyone think minnesota should do like wisconsin where you have to harvest a doe to earn a buck tag? I think it would work in the northern area where i hunt,we see alot of does. thanks

[harvey lee]

No.

[bottomdweller]

What Harvey said.

[billiam]

why don't you think it will work? no need to yell either.

[harvey lee]

It would work in areas where the DNR has the special hunts as everyone always waits for the bigger bucks and no-one shoots the doe's and thats what they need shot to control the herd.

I dont know your reasons for wanting this so its hard to answer. Do you want this to protect bucks so they can grow bigger or would you like to see this to control the deer herd?

[billiam]

I guess i am just looking to hear the good and bad thoughts on this issue. I'm not sure if we would get bigger bucks but i'm sure it would control the deer population.

[harvey lee]

I do believe the DNR has pretty good control of the population with thier doe tag program. If you were to have a shoot a doe first and then a buck, I am afraid everyone would do too much damage to the doe population. Some hunters only want one deer and they would like it to be a buck.

Lets say you are out hunting and you see a trophy buck and have not yet shot a doe, what a bummer.

I believe that many sportsman hunt deer for different reasons and to restrict them to a specific rule or too many of them would chase some away. We are losing enough young kids today that are not hunting or fishing and any extra laws that might make it more diffucult may make it worse.

Just my thoughts.

[VMS]

In some ways, I am on the fence with this one.

Certain areas of the state have such an over-abundance of does that more could (and IMHO should) be done to get them back into a better ratio with the bucks. In my particular area of hunting, this is our problem...everyone wants a buck, shoots them and leaves the does. Bucks are all spikes or forks for the most part that are shot.

On the other hand, there is just something special about shooting a buck, and that is hard to look past when that buck walks out and in range.

If I had a choice of which method of harvest, I think I would choose the Earn-a-buck idea. It gives me more time in the woods, doe's would be more readily harvested, and in the overall grand scheme of things, I think there would be more bucks as well.

We see so many shows on TV that are shot on these ranches where the deer are managed (in all aspects...feeding, etc) and their buck to doe ratio is 2:1 or somewhere close to that... That requires a lot of does to be harvested in order to keep that ratio in check, making the rut MUCH more intense. Is this ever going to happen? Probably not, but it would be nice to see.

I know many who really hated the Earn A buck in Wisconsin since the bucks seemingly disappeared once the main season started. I think what hurt that the most was the early T-zone, though, too..

Steve

[Tenpoint]

I don't think I would support it for archery hunting. It's hard enough to get that nice buck in range the first time, but to have to let it walk because I haven't arrowed a doe yet would be hard to swallow. I would rather see an antler point restriction for adult hunters (kids shouldn't have to worry about counting points) than earn a buck tag.

Just my two cents worth, and that is about all it's worth

[VMS]

Tenpoint,

I'll give you your point on archery...Tough enough to get a deer in range let alone a nice buck. (Hence the reason I am on the fence with this...) I'd have no problem taking a doe early on though... I seem to see more does in September...

Steve

[Code-Man]

I think people should have to shoot a doe and then get a buck tag. But I can also see that opening morning wall mounter walking out and you can't shoot him. But I honestly think a person should shoot a doe before getting a buck tag. I also would like to see the seasons get stretched out some more so you can pick and choose your mature deer instead of having to take whatever you see because it's only a few days of season. I would like to see more hunting days and a doe needs to be taken prior to buck but I can see where that opening morning buck walks out and you can't legally shoot it. I think there are way too many people out there that will not shoot anything but a buck.

[harvey lee]

If the DNR would let everyone shoot a doe first then I am afraid that we would loose our deer population pretty fast. This is thier way of trying to control the herd.

If hunters want more and bigger bucks then we as hunters must control what we shoot.

[Mark Christianson]

I would not support an earn a buck idea.

I hunt with bow, rifle and muzzleloader.

I choose to shoot antlerless or buck with my bow.

With my rifle, its soley anterled deer, unless I see a wounded deer. If its showing any signs of weakness, I will shoot with my rifle.

With the muzzleloader, depending on what the rest of the season has offered, I decide based on previous success or lack thereof. If I have not tagged any deer, I will take any antlerless deer that comes by. If I have tagged a deer or two with bow or rifle, I become much much more selective.

Just my personal goals the past couple years, and each year they may adjust according to many factors.

I dont want an earn a buck system. No way.

[delmuts]

i've been reading this forum with a lot of interest! i didn't realize how spoiled i was here in Iowa ! our DNR surveys areas by county. decides what the deer population is, and the number of anterless deer they want taken out . they issue a certain number of anterless tags we can then buy for that county, besides our regular tag.del

[VMS]

Quote:

---

If hunters want more and bigger bucks then we as hunters must control what we shoot.

---

I couldn't agree more with this statement Harv, but...when the season is no more than 2 weeks for the most part (unless you hunt by muzzleloader or archery) one is less likely to pick and choose since the hunt is (at least IMHO) is more for meat than anything. We shoot what we see and if it has antlers, that will go first.

So..it begs the question that was brought up earlier...how easy would it be to regulate point restrictions?

Steve

[lilman]

Quote:

---

Does anyone think minnesota should do like wisconsin where you have to harvest a doe to earn a buck tag? I think it would work in the northern area where i hunt,we see alot of does. thanks

---

I can tell you at a local high school Outdoor adventures class camp out some kids happened to stumble onto a dead doe that wasnt gutted, or nothing, but the yahoo left his tag still in the ear...you think he just wanted a buck to shoot? I realize that it probably doesnt happen too much, but if he dragged it all the way back to andover, there is either a)something more to the story or 2) he/she was just dumb enough to lose cargo space and get some worse gas mileage.

Granted he did what the Dnr wanted, kill a doe, but certainly not waste it.

We practice QDM to the teeth up on our property near NYM, which is about a section of land. Does it work you bet. Do I have a problem smoking does? Never thought twice about it I even took a bad genetic buck out this year that had wandered too close to my bowstand too many times.

No, people that want to put meat in the freezer will do just that. Maybe I read it wrong but I thought the last report said the average bowhunter took two deer? thats pretty amzaing considering the bow kill percentage ten years ago, or even five years aog.

[harvey lee]

I agree with you VMS. I have the luxury of hunting all fall with a bow and have 2 weeks for the gun season. This does allow me to be much more picky than the average hunter who only gets a few days.

I dont know how the antler restriction would work or how it could be implemented.

[Tenpoint]

I think that antler point restrictions wouldn't be that hard to implement. As with any law or regulation compliance is mostly up to the individal. I know it would take some getting used to, but it wouldn't be as bad as you think. I am not against rifle hunters having to shoot a doe first, but as an archery only hunter, I don't want to be handcuffed that much.

Even though I don't like it as an bowhunter, what would you think about having a statewide doe only gun season like they have had up north. I'm not convinced that the deer levels are as high as some would like us to believe, but that would be an option.

Just wondering did you call a concervation officer to report the deer that was found. The person could have been cited for wanton waste?

[lilman]

A call to a co was made...

[UMDSportsman]

Quote:

---

I am not against rifle hunters having to shoot a doe first, but as an archery only hunter, I don't want to be handcuffed that much.

---

Sorry, i don't agree with you.

Since you are an archery hunter, you have a lot longer season to persue what ever you want. I just recently have picked up a bow and muzzelloader and have the opportunity to take a deer anytime in any season with the specified weapon. Before that i was confined to just rifle hunting and if a person works all week, or goes to school, then they are just left with four days to take a deer, not much time in comparison. From what I have seen, in general the people that are bowhunting are more the type of people that care more about the population and would be more willing to take a doe first. With bow hunting, you have more time, and with more time i equate more opportunities. I know there is a lot more to this that i am not going to talk about, but i think to be fair, it should all or none.

[Tenpoint]

O.K. I will concede you the point about all or none. That is really the only way to be fair. But in my experience other than the rut, the first two weeks of the season is the best time to tag a nice buck. I took the best buck of my life this year, the second week of the season. I had not even seen a doe yet. I had to sit hundreds of hours over many years just to get that opportunity . If I had had to let him walk away because I hadn't harvested a doe yet, I would have quit hunting alltogether. I'd have to take up knitting or scrapbooking or some other horrible pastime.

[UMDSportsman]

i agree with you i don't like the idea of haveing to pass up on the buck of a lifetime because you have to shoot a doe first. I would gladly take the first deer that offers me a shot, besides a fawn. I haven't killed anything with a bow yet and would be extremely excited no matter what it is.

[VMS]

That is what makes this such a tough debate. I think some good points have been brought up on the Archery -vs- rifle hunting and how we can view deer management, time in the field etc.

I fully understand if that buck of a lifetime walks out with either weapon..I'd love to have that opportunity regardless. I do understand, though, that bowhunting (IMHO) is a much harder sport to close the deal on due to the limits of accurate shooting range.

So...instant poll here (non scientific). Sound off on Antler point restriction Aye (for antler point restriction) or Nay. This would be interesting, even though it is just a small sampling, but it might be something that can work. The more I think about it, the more I actually like it. You get that chance at the trophy, but yet you are limited at the same time.

For me: Aye

[Tenpoint]

My vote would be AYE as long as kids under 16 could shoot what they want. We have to make it fun for the kids.

[woody1975]

I am with tenpoint. AYE to the antler point restriction as long as kids get a choice. I bow hunt and hunt with a gun and it seems to me (in some cases) people that hunt strictly with firearms say that the bow hunters have 3 months to hunt and that it is easy for them to say - My response everytime is "Start bowhunting then"

My .02

[fishane]

Just to set the record straight for all of you fellas worried about seeing Mr. Big and not being able to shoot. In Wisconsin, and I would hope in Minnesota if Earn a Buck becomes law, any anterless deer from the year before counts toward Earn a Buck. Shoot a doe in 2006, and Mr. Big comes out the first night of bow season in 2007 and you can kill him legally. This should calm some people down. If it doesn't perhaps you are not doing your part to control the deer herd.

[fishane]

My last post seems to have quieted some of the others who post on this forum. Also be aware that this is a recent change in WI. Earn a Buck is not good or bad, it is just another tool available to the DNR. In some areas (especially where it is all private land) it may be necessary to use Earn a Buck to assure a sufficient number of antlerless deer harvested. Let us not forget that as hunters we like to see deer, but having so many deer that we all get to see some every time we go out is not sustainble from a habitat standpoint.

[harvey lee]

fishane, I would agree in some areas and conditions I believe a program like that just might work or help.

[lawdog]

That's the thing, we need to do these things by specific area. Earn a buck here would be entirely non-sensical since we don't have enough deer the way it is and we shouldn't be doing a population reduction type of management hunt as if we were overrun with deer. Where there is overpopulation problems then the earn a buck or even drawings for buck tags like ND does may be the answer. I understand the desire to have a simplified system, but one size just doesn't fit all areas in this vary diverse state.

[Tenpoint]

While I can't argue with your logic, I still have a problem with being told what and when I have to kill something. To take an animals life is a personal thing. I do shoot does as well as bucks, I just don't want to be required to do it. I personally find it easier to swallow being told what I can't shoot (point restriction) than what I have to shoot. (Earn a Buck) I realize to that Earn a Buck would work to reduce deer levels, while antler point restriction would do more to balance the herd structure, so maybe I am off base. I agree with the other posts. Different approaches will be needed for different areas.