new hunting regs

[CSSF]

Lou didn't enact the new regs for 2009, they were run through legislation after the DNR shot down a proposal to add two days back to 3A. The APR, EAB, and cross-tagging regulations during the second weekend of 3A came on afterward as a compromise between the requests of the major groups in zone 3, put in place by the legislators writing the bill.

The deer population now in most of zone 3 is way too high for the habitat. You can tell this by the obvious browse line, and the paths through the woods that look like a huge herd of cattle just ran through, let alone the massive amounts of damage to crops.

Because of such an overpopulation, I see no point in why the DNR removed the second weekend from 3A in the first place, and there was a large group of people complaining about that, until someone did something about it.

The DNR is indeed to the folks to hold accountable for management of the deer herd (low population in SW Minnesota, extremely high population in SE Minnesota), and as the heads of the big game dept. are the guys that make the changes (and recommend to the commissioner), so they are the guys to who should be held accountable.

[Jameson]

Well that is your opinion and view. One persons. My view and opinion for the multiple areas I hunt around the state are that the deer are being managed in a proper way. Again though, just one persons opinion.

[lcornice]

I hope my last question is not being out of line. I am just wondering what the percentage of legal anterless deer were taken during muzzleloader season. Just from talking to people I didn't think it would be much higher than those taken during archery season but I may be wrong because I don't have the stats.

I would like to express my opinion, though, that I feel the anterless tags should be distributed between all three seasons so it does not show a bias towards any method of harvest.

Thank-you much, I do appreciate your input here,

Art

Art,

I just looked at the 2008 archery and muzzleloader antlerless harvest in lottery areas. Statewide archery was 10% (not 9% like I said before sorry) and muzz. was 12%. BUT, the muzz. percentage was biased low because of the permit areas with a lot of permits (>500). If we look at the permit areas with 500 permits or less, archery was still 10% and muzzleloader was 19%. It actually gets more skewed as permit numbers decrease with muzz hunters running 5-10% higher than archery hunters (generally). You do bring up a good point and we'll have to see what archers do this year. One thing to remember is when permit numbers are reduced and tighter controls are implemented, percentages become less valuable. For example, the permit areas with youth-only antlerless means that 100% of the harvest antlerless harvest will come from youth. In these cases (youth only, low lottery numbers), we have to look at the number of deer in bag not the percentage of take by license type.

If archers all of sudden start taking enough antlerless deer to warrent attention, we'll have to look at making the change. My gut tells me no but you never know until the last deer is registered!

If that doesn't make sense, let me know.

[helpme]

I have to agree with CSSF, until the DNR can manage the number of deer in any particular zone effectively, there should be no consideration to any specialty groups to manage for bucks. When I can drive a 1.5 miles and see almost 120 deer, there is an issue. Take zones 345, 346 and 349 and look at the 2008 Pre Fawn Deer Density map located on the MN DNR HSOforum, 21-30 deer per square mile. Can this area support such a population? Biologically speaking, I cannot answer that question. But I can tell you from a car/deer collision stand point, we have way too many deer in the area. Hey Lou, what is your thoughts on the amount of deer within these 3 permit areas?

[flipper]

Thanks for getting back to me Lou.

Art

[helpme]

Jameson, you should check out these 3 permit areas, 345, 346 and 349. Deer everywhere. I would agree managing the whole state the same would be a nightmare, Lou you up for the challenge? Consider this, once the deer herd is in check, obviously we need input from a deer bioligist(S) for this, or a drive down HWY 61-splat (my sick humor coming out). Majority of people know that a 1 to 1 buck doe ratio would be ideal. Is this even possible in SE MN? I am sure it is. I believe communication and cooperation is the key to a successful trophy management system. The DNR should be teaching these people and explaining to them it takes cooperation from land owners to manage a trophy area. Obviously with the internet and TV (versus) you do not need to go far to hear about large bucks. A land share management system would be ideal in certain situations. You, your neighbor and the guy that owns the 2,000 acres next door can get together and manage the land the way you want. Do not push land management issues down on the average Joe. This is what it is all about, the government telling me what I can or cannot do with the land I own.

[ac777]

Originally Posted By: ac777*

So does this mean I can shoot a deer with My bow, and a buck with my gun if I were to be drawn in the lottery for a lottery zone. I didnt find any where it said I couldnt. If not, please cite your source.

No, it doesn't. The bag limit in lottery areas is one deer per year total. Source: me

Back up sources (cut and pasted from the online book):

page 67 (bag limits): Lottery deer areas: The bag limit is one deer total per year, regardless of license type. Bonus permits are not valid in lottery deer areas.

page 82 (description of lottery deer areas): The number of deer hunters can kill in a lottery deer area is one, regardless of license type.

page 90 (muzz section describing lottery deer areas): All hunters are limited to taking one deer total

page 92 (archery section describing lottery deer areas): The bag limit is one deer total.

Thanks for clearing this up lcornice

[ANYFISH2]

helpme and cssf,

I sure hope that with the your problems with deer numbers on your farms, that you are letting as many people on to hunt as you can. If your not, than you are not helping solve the problems you have. Deer managment is larger than just your farm, nieghborhood or even county. Micro managment like that is up to YOU.

[CSSF]

well, the neighbor's hunt 3A pretty heavily, and we hunt 3B very heavily. We also hunt Muzzleloader now that 3B hunters can hunt that season. We also hunt archery season as well. So yes, we do let a LOT of people hunt on our land. Overall, the lands we hunt on have about 35 different people hunting on them.

[fish]

Icornice,

I have appreciated all of the straight forward interpretation of the regulations. I am not the smartest guy in the room. The regulations are complicated for a guy like me. You posting on this site has given us a direct pipeline to getting factual information. I would have to think that we have access in our state to have questions answered that there may not be in other states. Being not that smart I put my trust in you and the DNR that they know better than my simple observations of herd count and hunter opinion. I took many statistics courses in college and know how difficult it is to set up a valid study and interpret the results. Keep up the good work. Just because I have not shot the biggest buck in the state or seen multiple trophy bucks doesn't mean it is mismangagement of our resources. There are so many factors that result in a successful harvest. I have much more control over a successful hunt. I hunt to be outdoors, enjoys my family and occasionally have healthy game to feed my family.

[Jameson]

How many people per acre though? On the private land I manage, in a Lottery area, I too note that on those 26 acres of swamps and woods a few too many deer are using the area IMO. But the way the rules are set-up allows me to manage the area. So I will be inviting 2-3 other bow hunters besides myself to bow hunt the land this Fall. Also on gun opener I hope to have all 7 of my stands full. Yep that's 7 hunters for 26 acres or less than 4 acres per hunter. That is a big change from a few years ago when I allowed NO ONE else to hunt the land. (lc don't let all this get to your head , habitat management and trespassing management, not regulations have had the biggest impact on the land I manage)

So if you have 35 people hunting are you hunting on 140 acres or less? If not IMO YOU are not doing your job.

[96trigger]

I didn't know that the management tags were OTC last year during 3A. Our area last year was IH, If that was the case, we would have went 3A last year.

Maybe I am way off, maybe people will still want to hunt 3B. Two of our party are now retired and used to like to hunt the 3B because it meant extra days off, that is not the case anymore. Some of the rest of us bow hunt so we know what it would be like to hunt the rut and have wanted to for years. Maybe I'll get lucky and shoot a nice one with my bow, then I can still hunt the rut and look for does, or wait for ML season.

As for too many deer, we have a lot up here in 342, they are not causing all the destruction that CFFS is claiming at least on the farms I go to. I am on the farm alot and don't see the corn rows being sheered off, the outside rows are getting hit, but that is more coon and deer. Right now, I see the deer in the alfalfa fields way more than the corn fields. Also, I agree whole heartedly that micromanaging is for the hunter. If you have too many deer, you need to eradicate some. We don't have that problem where I am at, the deer are plentiful, but not overy abundant.

[lcornice]

<habitat management and trespassing management, not regulations have had the biggest impact on the land I manage.>

I agree 100%. Regulations shouldn't be the barrier to good stewardship. That's the principal reason the all-season and multi-zone were eliminated and the deer areas were divided into 3 categories (L,M,I). It got very difficult to explain if you have this license you can do that in these areas only. Now that the licenses are independent and statewide, it's up to the to hunter to know the bag limit and the landowner to decide 1) how many people, and 2) how many deer. We can certainly disagree on whether an area should be lottery or managed but based on the drop in 'what can I do with this license' calls I've received it seems easier to comprehend compared to 2 years ago.

I do appreciate the dialogue everyone. I've found this board extremely respectful and the information really gets out beyond this forum. I certainly wouldn't put myself out there if it wasn't!

[ANYFISH2]

CSSF

So going by your previous posts that means your party could shoot 175 deer (sounds like you are in an intensive harvest area). And you said everyone could shoot a doe first weekend (35 does). Well with just those to numbers, if you are insisting that you party kill all the deer they see because they are causing so much damage you really shouldn't have much of a problem ( if the area is 21-30 prefawn).

Now I know that isn't realistic, but one can not blame someone else for a problem with deer on thier own land. It sounds like you should let some hunt your land during 3A (assuming nieghboors hunt thier own) and tell your party to shoot every doe they see, your problem should be far less by next year. Don't mean to be rude, I have just grown tired of hearing "too many deer" but "I dont allow anyone else to hunt here", Or we hunt during rifle so I don't allow bowhunters. If you don't want them shot than one can't complain about thier numbers.

I'm done, back to the new regs.

[helpme]

CSSF hunts 120 acres! During the early anterless season we saw dozens of basket racks, when it was time for our regular season, all we saw were large bucks. Can you explain to me where the basket racks went? The larger ones chase them away?

[vister]

you make it sound like that is a problem!

[helpme]

According some special interest groups it could be if we were shooting them.

[Jameson]

Can you answer this lc?

What is the average number of deer harvested per hunter in a Intensive harvest area? Managed? Lottery?

My guesses are 1, .8, .6.

I am wondering if reducing tags by 80% (changing an area from Intensive to Lottery) corresponds to an 80% drop in harvest. I wouldn't think it would. Something like a 30-40% drop seems more expected to me.

Thanks for everything!

[picksbigwagon]

I just returned from a few days of F/F/and F (Fishing, friends, and firearms) in Iowa and have spent a bit of time reading through these posts. Lou, thank you for posting here and clarifying questions as they pop up.

The only part of Minnesota I have not been to is NW MN so I have no idea about their deer herd and landscape, but as I was driving up HWY 52 today I had time to think about the diverstity of MN.

Driving north from Iowa, I was thinking about the doe quota per county for this year in Iowa counties, I would guess (without the actual map in front of me) NO DOE QUOTA=1/3rd of the state, 500-2000 doe permits, 1/3 of the state, and 2000+ doe permit quotas the last third. Some of the highest doe quota's are along the mississippi river in allamake county (my home county) and Clayton county(The county directly south of All.). I bring these two counties up because they are the closest (in my limited knowledge) to what is found in MN's 346 and 349. I have hunted 346 and 349 and there are a ton of deer.

There is a growing trend right now in those areas to limit access to hunters, or look for the all mighty $$$$ to hunt the land in both MN and IA. In parts of Allamakee county, I personally know of families that complain about the deer taking a big bite out of their crops, how they need to reduce the deer in their area, shoot A LOT of deer, and will not let anyone except family hunt their farms.

I don't have the answer, but each part of this state is completely different than the rest. Different topograpy, different mineral make up, different crop capabilities . All of these factors affect the deer herd and therefore should affect the number of deer licenses available.

[jtoast]

CSSF and Help Me

You're right on with the observation that we're very overpopulated in the SE corner. That's not news to anyone, including the DNR. Didn't they (DNR) address that overpopulation a few years ago when they took the 2 days away from the "A" season in an attempt to get more hunters in the "B season" killing does? Even by taking those 2 days away, the 3A hunt is as popular as ever. Now (can I assume) your group added two more days to kill more bucks and basically return us to the season structure that got us overpopulated in the first place, hence adding to the population problem? Remember the 3A season is killing 60+ percent male deer. How exactly is that going to help the overpopulation problem? And what do you suggest the DNR (or god forbid the legislature)do about said overpopulation. We basically let everyone shoot as many does as they want (up to 5) and the numbers continue to rise. It's a social thing, hunters want to see deer (especially bucks). We (hunters) pressurred the DNR to give us just that. And frankly they did a kick butt job. Try thanking them for once. Now we have too many deer to the point of a potentially serious problem and the biggest deer hunting group in the state who should be advocating for the health of the herd as much if not more than for greedy hunters, manipulated the decision making away from the only people that can fix the very problem you complain about. Hunters have created the problem(s), don't blame the DNR or ask them to atifically manipulate herd balance for numbers. Support them in fixing the results of our exploitations and greed and be happy with what a properly balanced deer herd produces. Anything other than that is ethically no better than what people do for canned hunts.

[helpme]

jtoast,

We all know there is a population problem. My issue is when the DNR takes away the opportunity to shoot deer by reducing the number of days available to reduce the herd. When the opportunity is not available, the only option for these farmers are to utilize depredation permits and when these are issued in the early part of teh year the farmer can not tell the difference between a doe or buck. By the way removing the 2 days from 3a did not move the hunters to 3b.

I believe the only option left is buck permits, we all do not want to see this one. Could you imagine the uproar??? I do see a real impact the early anterless season does to the doe population. Another thought, have another weekend to hunt does? I am sure the bowhunters would have an issue with that. I personally do not want to see the season moved any later than it is. I do not want QDM management being regulated by any governing body. Cross tagging of bucks, I do not think is a real big issue, because people do not want others to use their tag to tag somebody else's deer.

[00rowe]

I'm a huge supporter of QDM and if you have some crazy idea that they have something against shooting mature bucks you need to attend a meeting or get your facts straight. If you were talking about another "special interest group", I apologize, but that's the way your post came across.

I would like to see how many people want to hunt CSSF's land if they couldn't shoot a buck but only does, to help reduce his deer herd. I guess hunting has really changed, when people WANT to have MORE hunters on their property, especially strangers. I enjoy hunting with my family as much as anyone else, but when I can see someone else from my deerstand that ruins it for me, I've always thought I was born 200 years late.

Mike

[jtoast]

I could imagine the uproar. Point is there's a problem and it has to be dealt with using some level of change. I think the DNR considers what change would have the least amount of impact on the hunters. Taking two days away (actually moving them) was a very small change. Turns out it didn't have the desired effect the DNR had hoped for and our problems have continued. Next step... Be it buck permits, EAB, antler restrictions etc. it is going to have a significant effect on the way we all hunt, but as I said before, it has to happen. We are going down the same road other states have, they didn't like it either, but with their unpopular changes, problems or at least disturbing trends were able to be corrected and they eventually got use to it and life (hunting) went on. I just want hunters to hunt, don't expect trophies or huge amounts of deer around each corner, educate themselves about what a healthy herd is, listen to (and respect) the professionals when they talk and embrace needed change, however unpopular it may be.

[96trigger]

Sounds like those two SE zones are going to be perfect candidates for EAB. I do not know how high the population is, but if the hunters cannot regulate the deer herd enough, the DNR will be forced to do it for you. Also, about the special interest group, I lost all respect for them when they went through the legislature and not the DNR. What good are all the restrictions on the last weekend of the 3A season, there is still the same 7 days that they (small bucks) can get pounded because they are absolutely witless during the rut. The restrictions should have been all season or at the very least the first weekend. How is that going to have any difference in the number of immature bucks taken? Recent seasons during the rut, were 7 days long with no antler restrictions, this years season, 7 days long with no antler restrictions, where is the thought process???? The only positive that I can find is that maybe with OTC doe tags, some huntes will pass on that fork because they will have the opportunity to take a doe, its easier to pass on the forkie if you know you shoot the doe thats with it. However, when they did that, they took away all incentive to go 3B. Which I believe will lead to some overcrowding during 3A.

[helpme]

We all know what needs to happen, how we get there is the real issue. I stated before, until we get the herd in check, meaning a more 1-1 buck doe ratio, I do not believe we should be managing for antlers. We are heading in the right direction with the intensive harvest season, we need to take it one step further, whether it is more opportunity to shoot the does, EAB, APR or buck tags, that decision should be made by the DNR. And I agree, legislation should not be used for this. What options were left for this group, they tried utilizing the correct path.

When you have an over-populated area and they take days away from people to hunt how are you going to reduce the herd???? Yea you are going to say the two days were moved to 3B, very few people moved because of the situation of land sharing. Farmer hunts 3A lets n family or friends or even maybe a stranger to hunt 3B. If they consider combining the seasons like they did in zone 4, WOW that will be an issue. I personally know 6 people that lost all the land they hunted because of the same concerns mentioned above.

And by the way CSSF says that they do not care what people shoot on their land as long we shot them.