8 - Point Restrictions Meeting In Perham

[buckhunter21]

I wouldnt mind it being on all seasons but like you said bow hunters take a very small percent of the harvest so they really dont have much affect on it. The only problem I see is the one I mentioned before is that bow hunters get a bad rep already on having a longer season, no drawings for tags, and a few other advantages but I think the people who complain about those things have probably never tried bow hunting and realize how difficult it really is. I wouldnt even mind if it was just APRs on rifle season and leave bow and muzzy the same.

I would strongly be against APRs if they were going to have youth involved in it. That is a critical time for a new hunter to get a shot or two in to get them hooked on the sport for life. They should be able to shoot whatever they choose until they become an adult and hopefully they would have a good chance at a big boy during their youth years if APRs were in effect and that would really get them hooked for life.

[Musky Buck]

I hear ya, go through the best buck pics in the outdoor news and it is turning more into bow kills, go count them it's about a 50/50 split on mature bucks bow vs gun. But, I think more submit the bow pics of course because it might mean more to take them at close range or something. I know a lot of bow guys 1 of there thoughts is to have a crack at them before the rifler's. I don't know what's best but the bucks are really thinned out, way worse than years before, no wonder it is so tough to find a shed in some areas, there are very few that make it to shedding time.

[luckey]

hockeybc69 - I may have you beat. I'm 59 and got my first bow kill buck this past fall. I am all some method of preventing the high number of 1.5 year old bucks from being killed every year. However, I don't think APR will be all that effective. Then again I can only speak for the area I hunt (central part). The antlers on the 1.5 year olds vary from year to year. Last year about 25% of these deer had 4 points on a side. A couple years ago about 75% of them would have been legal under a 4 point to a side restriction.

[Musky Buck]

I hear all of this. What is the magic answer I don't know. Apparently lots of hunters are hopeful for some kind of change that will allow some more bucks to reach maturity which will mean fewer bucks killed in areas if changes are made at first. I think certainly it would be changed for rifle/shotgun season where I'm guessing 9 out of 10 use a scope. Bow you'd have no scope and muzzy no scope. If muzzy hunter numbers rise I could see it expanding to them or us I should say. I'd like to see it in 240, then we'd have a test area to check on. Then again any Itasca State park results from the past 2-3 years ?

[buckhunter21]

Then again any Itasca State park results from the past 2-3 years ?

Ive been wondering the same thing and cant find anything on it. I wonder if Lou has any results but Im willing to bet he steers clear of these kind of threads so he probably wont even read it.

[Musky Buck]

Can't blame him lol. I really liked old zone 4. It gave the hunter some options, 2 days and done. 4 days and done. Or multi-zone buck to the all season buck. If you couldn't handle waiting for 2nd weekend you went for 2 days. If you wanted 2x as much time to hunt you went the second. Split up the hunters, split up the pressure and that also helped turn some properties into sanctuaries allowing more bucks to survive the season add to it there were about 10,000 muzzy hunters compared to 70,000 today. I really feel the old school muzzy guys took one in the shorts. The very reason they chose to hunt that way has been taken away.

[vister]

what you just said would be the only downfall to AR i believe, if they didnt enforce it for the youth. dad would shoot a buck with too few of points, and juniors tag would go on it. i guess no matter what laws we have, some people just wouldnt care. AR sounds great for those of us looking for mature whitetails, but, i dont think we'll ever win. with deer numbers being what they are, i think the dnr is more worried about getting the herd under control before they control which deer are shot. if anyone wants to jump on the bandwagon with muskybuck, buckhunter, and myself, and the rest of those here who support AR, start by managing your own property. even if you hunt public property, that fork you pass doesnt necessarily get tagged if you pass him up!!

[hockeybc69]

Quote:

i think the dnr is more worried about getting the herd under control before they control which deer are shot.

There arent too many areas left to get under control I am afraid.

Quote:

start by managing your own property

Been doing it for several years vister. And many more are like us out there.

Last year our neighbors shot 5 bucks opening day. 4 yearlings, and one decent one. We took zero bucks last year.....

Gets frustrating passing deer, and the neighbors pile em up.

Not to say they shoot every one, but they are doing their part to clean up whatever walks by them. Its legal, and I cant fault them for doing what they choose. But it gets under our skin at times too. I wont lie.

[buckhunter21]

Last year our neighbors shot 5 bucks opening day. 4 yearlings, and one decent one. We took zero bucks last year.....

Gets frustrating passing deer, and the neighbors pile em up.

Not to say they shoot every one, but they are doing their part to clean up whatever walks by them. Its legal, and I cant fault them for doing what they choose. But it gets under our skin at times too. I wont lie.

I think we all feel your pain. Im sure most of us who support some kind of reg change have all been through and are probably still dealing with something of that nature at least I know I have. I think thats why we want a reg change so everyone is on board. I dont think alot of people who are against it understand or just dont care that it takes everybody for it to work and only one or two small groups to ruin it with the allowance of party hunting. Im starting to change my mind though the past week after hearing some other peoples takes on it and I really think eliminating party hunting would help out quite a bit as long as it was enforced the right way. I know there would be people out there who would still tag someone elses buck but if you put a hefty fine and a loss of hunting rights for 5 years I bet most people would think twice. I would still be all for APRs but it is just so divided I dont think we will ever see it.

[simple1]

Iowa also has does not allow shotgun hunting during the rut. I also believe that this is a huge factor in the size of deer in my home state. I was shocked when I moved to MN and found out people gun hunt during the rut. Lets just say bucks are not as smart during this period.

[00rowe]

We've taken 2 bucks off of 280 acres in the past 8 years, and the buck sightings were DOWN this year. It only takes one "party" to screw up an entire area. I'd be in favor of a later season, even Canada hunts later than we do, so you can't blame the cold winters for our rut hunt.

Mike

[00rowe]

After the Startrib's interview with Lou about deer hunting, I really don't think he gets it. He made it sound like Wisconsin has so much better habitat, that's the reason they shoot more and bigger deer. Just another example of a Government official not willing to accept ANY responsibility for their actions/inactions. Minnesota used to be a top producer of Boone-Crockett bucks, now we've been surpassed by a lot of other states that have taken action to increase the overall age structure of the bucks and therefore the overall health. I would guess that after many generations of yearly bucks breeding that the overall genetics would worsen, because of a lack of competition for breeding rights.

mike

[PEATMOSS]

Wisconsin DOES have better overall habitat than Mn.

[picksbigwagon]

NE Iowa has better overall habitat that MN too.

[00rowe]

Why then historically speaking did MN produce as many/more Booners than Wisconsin, but now Wi produces far more? Yes Wisconsin has a larger deer herd, but look at the percentage of anterless they harvest, and then the average age of the bucks they are shooting. AGE has nothing to do with habitat, management does. The Breen Buck and the MN Monarch came from the "big woods", not exactly "prime" habitat. Look at the Ripley bucks, no food plots their. What I am getting at is MANAGEMENT is the difference, Lou shouldn't have blamed our Habitat for our inferior hunting. Like I said, come up with something, short-term, WI did EAB and it didn't work/wasn't liked, DONE, easy at that. All's I ask is if we're paying someone to "manage" our deer herd, then try to improve it, don't just go to some public hearings and do NOTHING.

[buckhunter21]

Cant say Ive ever been to Wisconsin except for a drive down the interstate so I have no idea what their habitat looks like but it doesnt matter if you have the ideal habitat for deer when only a handful of the population gets to their second year. Im sitting in Illinois as I type this in one of the top producing counties in one of the top producing states and I would not trade the this terrain for where I hunt in MN, all it is basically is a few small sections of switch grass and thousands of acres of corn with a few groves of trees every once in a while but yet they still have better hunting that we do. I think the reason is everyone of my coworkers down here hunts and not one of them will think about shooting anything unless its big because they can just shoot a doe if they want meat. They have 3 separate weekend long shotgun seasons late in the year which I think helps alot too. With a few small changes we could be there too, right now we basically have a worst case scenario for the deer- We have a long season- During peak rut- some areas can use high powered rifle and shoot out to 300+ yards- we can tag multiple bucks in certain situations- and we have a very high hunter to deer ratio. Even changing one of those things would help some(not the last one I think its great we have alot of people interested in hunting) but changing any other one of those things would do something.

[PEATMOSS]

Why then historically speaking did MN produce as many/more Booners than Wisconsin, but now Wi produces far more? Yes Wisconsin has a larger deer herd, but look at the percentage of anterless they harvest, and then the average age of the bucks they are shooting. AGE has nothing to do with habitat, management does. The Breen Buck and the MN Monarch came from the "big woods", not exactly "prime" habitat. Look at the Ripley bucks, no food plots their. What I am getting at is MANAGEMENT is the difference, Lou shouldn't have blamed our Habitat for our inferior hunting. Like I said, come up with something, short-term, WI did EAB and it didn't work/wasn't liked, DONE, easy at that. All's I ask is if we're paying someone to "manage" our deer herd, then try to improve it, don't just go to some public hearings and do NOTHING.

Did you hunt deer in this state in the 70's and 80's????.....you may want to run our DNR guys outa town on a rail for not pandering to the whims of the antler crowd, but I can remember freezing my arse for a week in the northwoods just to catch a glimpse of a deer. Not anymore. This year, like the rest of this decade, my freezer is full. Even got a nice "quality" buck this year.

[Quackaddict9]

Wisconsin DOES have better overall habitat than Mn.

so do the Lakosky's.

[vister]

the only reason states like illinois, iowa, kansas, etc, out produce MN for big bucks is because of their terrain, or lack of. Im sitting in des moines iowa as i type this, and i can tell you this state and the others mentioned, like mentioned, are states with huge parcels of flat, agricultural land, with a majority of hunting land being strips of trees, like wind breaks, and riverbottoms. so deer are going to be condensed into these few and far in between areas. these states also have fewer hunter numbers, and better managed regulations. also, people of these states also take huge pride in being known as big buck states, so a large percentage of hunters have it engrained in their minds of the size of the buck they shoot. and believe me, take a look at bragging boards around here. way more impressive than the ones back in MN. genetics, no. management, YES!!

i doubt these states would shoot as many big bucks if they were covered with the big woods like what we have in northern MN!! way too much ground to cover

"let 'em go, let 'em grow"

[mabr]

OK ive read and read both the bow forum and this one and it sounds like everyone is starting to agree that something needs to be done (I wont count you in that Peatmoss )

Ive asked it previously , but ill ask again. Why not start the gun season 2-3 weeks later than it currently is? The NON APR guys wouldnt feel like were encroaching on there rights and it would certainly save alot of young bucks from being killed by being dumb during their firt rut. Im just curious of the reasons this approach hasnt been taken already. Please dont say it to cold! Like Rowe already stated Canada gun hunts later than we do.

[PEATMOSS]

C'mon now buddy, I'm not the only one peeing in your wheaties

IF there really are so many folks on your side, why don't you organize, educate and persuede instead of whining about the DNR? The simple fact of the matter is your support is probably a little thinner than you imagine.

Lest you think I'm a total jerk, I'll tell you why I get all jacked up everytime one of these threads gets going. I look at the QBM crowd the same way I look at gun grabbers. Yeah, maybe we could make a small consession here or there, but what will that get us? If I let you dictate to me that a 6-point buck is unworthy of harvesting, do I really believe you guys will be content and grateful? Sorry, I don't. The let's just give this a little try will be followed by a push for more and more regs.I think once we start down the road to trophy management, there will be no turning back. There is alot of blowback associated with becoming a trophy destination state that I don't think is being considered. I don't ever want to have to apply just to get a buck tag in my home state. If my kids have to move out of state for work or family reasons, I don't want them to have to pay $500 for the privelege of hunting on the land they grew up on. I could go on and on.

The bottom line is that we are simply never going to agree, but I will say this, I am being totally honest when I say that I am more than satisfied with the management of our deer herd. How many folks on your side are being totally honest when they ask for just a little bit of change?

[hockeybc69]

Quote:

How many folks on your side are being totally honest when they ask for just a little bit of change?

I just want a little bit of change. I dont think anyone has posted dramatic reasoning for huge change.

I think its been pretty civil overall, and several ideas tossed out. Nobody has come in and said to scrap deer hunting as we know it. Lets adjust a little. Whether its move the dates, APR, no crosstagging, buck lottery, etc.

I agree, I dont think the DNR has done a horrible job on average. Sure, some areas have some issues, but good luck managing every section of land perfectly.

[96trigger]

I'm going to go back to the zone 3 survey on this even though it isn't the area we are talking about. Hunters viewed APR and non cross tagging of Bucks way more favorably than moving the season back even 5 days. If you have questions about why or what Lou is doing, you should try contacting him. He has been very forthcoming about every question I have asked. He also DOES read this forum.

In terms of habitat, this state is extremely diverse in habitat. We have ag land, prairie, bluff country, and big woods. There really isn't another state with that kind of habitat. It is a nigtmare from a management standpoint. What you guys and how you hunt north of the cities, is probably going to be different from how we hunt in the south east part of the state. I think the DNR is on the right track by chunking the state into different parts, and regulating them according to population. In some areas the population has stabilized and now discussion on managing for QDM can take place. Keep in mind, this is not the case in all areas.

I think if APR is set in place in some areas, it will cover all types of hunting, bow, firearm, and ML. I also think that there are alot of good parents out there that will not use their kids tags, yes, there will be a few, but lets just say that an 1/8 of the population is under 18, the percentage that would take their kids tag, probably would not be a significant number.

[picksbigwagon]

Vister, you need to move around a little more in Iowa to find the best deer habitat. Try Allamakee and Clayton counties, not Des Moines......

Management? Iowa wants to keep their deer population down and under control just as much as Minnesota does and in some parts of the state (Allamakee and Clayton counties) they give farmers extra tags (free mind you) to help them keep the popultaion under control. A friend of mine's mom works for a lawyer in Postville who recieved 45 permits because of the damage the deer caused to his crops. FORTY FIVE PERMITS!!!! Minnesota gives landowners 1 and do they give farmers extra permits to control the population?

[96trigger]

I bet des moines has cougers though.