What do you think of the new regs??

[stick]

Since the hunting regs are online now, books soon to show up, what do y'all think of them?

[picksbigwagon]

haven't taken the time to read it yet, I will wait for the books to show up....

[Jameson]

What do you think of them?

[Neighbor_guy]

I have not read them either, but I know this....

I am glad they changed 157 from 'Intensive' to 'Managed'....

[stick]

It's hard for me to say. Mostly I hunt a pretty secluded area in northern MN (rifle). That area went from "managed" last year to "lottery" this year. I recently took up archery hunting and dabbled a bit in the general metro area with limited sightings. I know some avid hunters that are saying the liberal bag limits are hurting the herd numbers. I hear a lot from others on both sides of the isle. I'm on the fence at this point and was just interested in hearing more opinions.

Overall:

Up north, tough hunting (it always has been), thick cover

Metro..I can't get plants to grow because the deer eat them all...

[Jameson]

I am O.K. with the new regs. My "home" area nothing changed from last year. It was lottery w/ 500 permits last year, and is again this year. My second area I am a little pained with it switching from managed to lottery, but we had noticed less deer in that area in recent years, so I can see why the change was made. My third area (correctly, IMO,) changed from intensive to managed, so thankfully I have still have somewhere to go to shoot does with the gun.

I strongly approve of having Muzzleloader hunters applying for doe tags. Now if we can get it all-inclusive and get Archers to have to apply for doe tags, it would be even better. And before anyone says it, yes I bow hunt.

Thank God I don't hunt in the messed up area 3. Well, the hunting is probably great there, but the regs are sure confusing.

I REALLY like page 13.

7000 doe permits in an area? WTH. Seems to me we need an additional area besides lottery, managed, or intensive. An area where a person can still only tag one deer, but doesn't need to apply for a doe tag.

[HNTNBUX]

Everything looks fine to me. Lots of people complained about not seeing enough deer last year so a reduction in doe tags seems reasonable. Where I hunt it is still intensive harvest but one area is no longer in the early antlerless season. I can live with that as I do not base my season on the number of does I shoot or see unless they are being followed by a big buck.

Now if we could only convince Lou to make it a lottery for all deer I would be happy.

[00rowe]

I guess I don't get why people see deer all summer long, pretty much everywhere, and then they don't see many during hunting season and completely forget about all the deer they saw all summer. I have family that "think" this way, but it's so small minded it drives me nuts. I hunt central MN (area 214) and the deer are out in about every field every evening throughout the summer, and then comes along fall (September.) It's now time to cut wood, tend to deer stands, start grouse hunting, harvest crops and many other outdoor activities, gee I wonder why the deer start to change their movements?

Has the DNR adjusted the estimated deer herd? If not how can they justify lowering the deer harvest? Area 214 has been an intensive harvest area for many years and last year had the Early Anterless season, which I thought was great. We took a few does for the freezer and focused on the wall hanger during the regular season.

I hope the fewer doe tags doesn't "force" people into shooting more yearling bucks, if that is even possible. I know many people that have started passing on small bucks, because they have been able to shoot multiple does, and now they will undoubtedly shoot small buck just to fill their 2 tags (managed area.)

I think the DNR has started to manage each area individually a little better, so some of the areas that do need a lottery for doe tags may be the right move. I would still like to see buck tags given out every OTHER year and a single doe tag available every year, so everyone can go every year, but maybe lessen the pressure on the baby bucks.

Thanks for letting me vent, I am just frustrated about the fewer tags available in my home area.

Mike

[paceman]

My two areas I hunt went from managed/intensive both to lottery. Not to tough to fill one tag. I prob won't bow or muzzy hunt so the state will loose out on that money. Last year I shot 5 deer, this year I only get to shoot 1. That is too bad as the farm I hunt in last years intensive area is overloaded and the farmer wants them reduced. This year it is lottery. Hoepfully I can bring a few guys out there and help them fill there tags.

[luckey]

I really can't see why an area would go from intensive to lottery in one year. Being we have not experienced a tough winter in a while, I would think areas would only need tweeking. For example, drop the early doe season, go from intensive to managed or managed to lottery. We had about half the normal deer sightings last year but the area is still intensive. I know the area is large and some locations in and area may have too many deer. Tough call.

[Jameson]

I hate to say it.....Could it be that major changes are in the works for next year? Changes like Antler Restrictions, where people aren't gonna be very happy if they are hunting in a lottery area with only a few doe tags available that first year.

Just think if we have an average or mild winter this year, next fall we could be overrun with deer.

[96trigger]

Yes, I think that what is taking place at the end of the 3A season this year might be in place all of next year. I wish they would have done it this year. 3A will be a free for all this year as there is no incentive to go 3B anymore unless you get the week off for thanksgiving, but I have reservations about the number of deer people will see during 3B.

I don't see those changes taking place anywhere except zone 3 though.

[vister]

im with 00rowe on this one. however, every night you drive around and see deer in very field, makes you kinda wonder how you hunting zone can go from intensive to managed. i'm in 240, just across highway 71 from 214, where 00rowe hunts. seems odd they go from intensive harvest with early anterless, to being only able to shoot 2 deer, vs 7 last year!

[CSSF]

you mean to tell me we're not already overrun with deer?

I just walked through one of my cornfields...and it looks like my cows were in it. Problem is, my cows haven't been in it, and neither have anyone else's cows. The deer have eaten a third of my field almost to the ground, and there's people who want to move the seasons so LESS deer are shot? People who want to put restrictions on what hunters can shoot? What the heck is wrong with this picture?

The population is too high, and needs to be brought down, and FAST.

[CSSF2]

CSSF is right. It's either bring down the population, or we're going to have diseases start running through the herds, and spreading to the farmers livestock. It's bad enough that Minnesota farmers can't send their cattle out of state, and it was getting close to the point where that ban would be lifted. I'm worried if the deer population isn't brought down, something's going to hit harder than that little bit of TB in Northwestern minnesota

[lichen fox]

The three things I like best about the new regs are.... the resctrictions on shining...the bow-gun, case laws... and the ability to buy both a quota (if you're drawn) and no-quota bear liscense...that means you could potentially shoot up to 3 bears a year!! As for the # of deer I can take it has basicly changed nothing for the area's I hunt...I hunt some in a managed area and some in an intensive that is just a little to the west...both have been the same now for that past 3 years.

[Bigslugger]

Im glad 219 switch to Lottery this year. In 2000 we had a heard of 29 deer, 4 in which were trophy bucks. As the years progressed it declined steadily. Now with a heard of 3 does this winter, now 2 fawns were born and sad to say the mother was hit by a car last weekend. The DNR change these regs for a better good. Maybe there are tons of deer by you but in other places there may be few, which in return leads to the few taking over the ton factor