8 - Point Restrictions Meeting In Perham

[Musky Buck]

Per acre of deer cover we have a lot of hunters, I almost see it as a decline since the dairy farmer was wiped out, those farms have been often times subdivided down to small portions. Instead of 2-3 owners in a section you now have 4-8 owners x however many hunters and we have a lot of acres in water, west of 94 a lot in crops/prairie. The deer have fewer places to survive the season meaning years ago we all knew places that were rarely or never hunted, those places are bought up and gone, that's just the way it is. And now we have so much opportunity it has caught up to the herd, the herd is dominated by young deer in many areas. Not even just the bucks, the doeheads are being targeted way more than years past as well, everyone wants to get some shooting in. If 3 come out a big,medium,little, the big goes down. Next when the medium and little walk by, chances are the middle one goes down. For a lot of people if any buck comes out, he's goin down, can't let the neighbors get him. Etc. Times changed.

[picksbigwagon]

You are correct Musky Buck, population density plays into it as well........

[Musky Buck]

It's a big difference when we compare the Dakota's,Iowa, etc. If we took out 250,000 gun hunters things would look a bit different anyway. Wisconsin is it's own beast. Talking area 240, basically a big chunk of Ottertail county, I bet there are very few properties that man has not explored. Just thinking, this 240 certainly used to be known and still is as a big buck, trophy buck producing area, that has tailed off quite a bit from years past. I think many of us have engrained into our minds about the years past and the legit 200 pound monsters that were in decent numbers come each fall, we want some of that back.

[mabr]

Peat I know your not the only one. I actually had a prety heated response to you on the archery forum but did my learned management skills to think before I spoke. And did a little reading of your past posts and realized your not that bad LOL. We actually almost had you last year! But needless to say were all brothers in the outdoors. I think we all realize that and regardless I would hope if we ever meet we could all toss back a cold beverage of our choice and be friends.

trigger, I know about the survey but WHY? has anyone giving a reason? Im genuinley curious. Also Trigger, im envious of you I dont hunt in the SE. It looks like your going to see some change, but my fear is the rest of us are going to be left out with no chance of any change. BUT hopefully as Ive said before others will see that it works and jump on the band wagon.

[PEATMOSS]

Are you buying?

[PEATMOSS]

I know that I'm not going to change the minds of the diehard QBM folks. I just post my side of the issue so that the folks in the middle don't get brainwashed by your sides silliness:)

[96trigger]

Quote:

I know about the survey but WHY? has anyone giving a reason?

The survey contained more than just QDM info. However, I think the QDM questions came about because of lobbying by area organizations. I think that had the survey came back with different results, we might not even be talking about it. This is not the first time this kind of survey has been sent. However, I think its the first time that the questions were QDM specific to APR, party hunting, and moving the season. I believe that it was also the first time it came back with such high support for some type of QDM management.

For those of you wondering about the survey, it has roughly a 2% margine of error. Most surveys have a 3-5% margin of error.

[96trigger]

Quote:

It looks like your going to see some change, but my fear is the rest of us are going to be left out with no chance of any change. BUT hopefully as Ive said before others will see that it works and jump on the band wagon.

If we do get change, it might be a spring board for other areas to follow. If it fails miserably, you can be thankful that you weren't the test subject.

[mabr]

How do I just quote to a portion of what Im responding too. Ive giving up searching for how to do it?

[hockeybc69]

copy the quote you want, hit the reply button, and click the quotation mark button above the text box.

Then paste your copied text between the quotes.

[mabr]

Quote:

copy the quote you want, hit the reply button, and click the quotation mark button above the text box.

Then paste your copied text between the quotes

thanks hockey

[00rowe]

No I did not hunt in the 70's or 80's. I am not complaining about the population of deer, I am saying the average age of bucks is too young, not only harvested but as a percentage of antlered deer. I would like to see our buck:doe ratio a little closer, but I'll settle for seeing a 3 year old for every 4 yearlings. Whether in bow stand, scouting, rifle season, or shining (legally) I rarely see a mature buck (3 year old). I think that is pathetic and easily fixed by reducing the amount of bucks harvested. I have family members that will complain about our lack of big bucks or say "we don't grow deer like that here" when watching t.v., but still shoot their opening weekend little buck. If you are not "proud" of your little buck, then shoot the doe, or a couple of fawns, that will produce the same amount of meat, and probably better tasting. I am actually disappointed when I see a little buck, because I won't shoot him, a nice doe appears and I get excited, apparantley I'm wired backwards. Although the most excitement on a shot not taken was a gorgeous 130" 3 year old I had at 4 yds while in a ground blind. I was disappointed a little at first, but the next year I caught a glimse of him and he was a 150'er, then he was spotted last year and was a monster, kickers and a beast of a deer. We didn't get him, but that's what I LIVE for. He's the only mature buck we've seen in 4 years, thankfully the neighbors are blazing away from sunup to 1 hour past sundown and have no chance at seeing him, but when asked what they shot, "a bunch of small bucks", in a disappointed tone. That drives me NUTS, but it's legal, and they have every right to do it. I do think that if something were passed to limit the buck harvest everyone would LOVE it after they HATED it, in 3-5 years.

Mike

You can't eat ANTLERS.

[vister]

imposing AR is a great way to limit the number of bucks harvested each year without having to apply for buck tags, or being told you can only shoot one buck every other year, isnt it mike??

imagine the woods with all of them forks and baskets being given the chance to grow a year or two. especially with the nutrition and fertile soil where we hunt. instead of seeing 10 bucks on the bow stand, and most of them being forks and baskets, youd see more 8's and 10's.

I think if people where restricted to only shoot a buck with x amount points, in time they will see benefits and be all for it. not only is AR better for people like myself, who like seeing more mature deer, but its better for the herd having a wider age structure instead of fawns through 3 year olds.

but enforced or not, passing on smaller bucks is the only way to see bigger bucks. thats what ive noticed

[00rowe]

I'm not so sure it would limit the amount of bucks taken in our area enough. I'd say 50% of yearly bucks I see already have 4 on a side, with that percentage probably 75% on 2 year olds. I know a few people that have passed on small bucks only to shoot a 2 year old with 15" spread and 8" tines, not braggin size, but a "nice" buck. From my experience, once bucks hit 3, they are smart enough to make it through a couple more hunting seasons. I will support APR, but like I said before, Colorado has been that way (4point minimum) for years with their elk, and it still has the highest elk herd and lowest trophy potential of all western states with a huntable elk herd. I'm not so sure it'll do much good, some good yes, I'll take whatever we can get.

NO party hunting with buck tags, 2 years NO buck tags, and buck tags available everyother year (even year for those born on even years and odd for those born on odd)after that is what I'd love to see. In your "off" year shoot some does and scout out the MONSTER you're after next year. I'm not a very patient person but would be more than happy to wait a few years to shoot a nice buck, I guess it's already been 10, why not a few more.

Mike

[buckhunter21]

The point of APRs is really not to let bucks go that only have a certain amount of points its purpose is to give yearlings one more year with a free pass. The reason a point system is used is because thats really the only easy was to do it without creating guess work and confusing people more. It would be great if they sad no yearlings at all but even though most of us experienced hunters can easily tell a yearling from an older deer alot of people would have trouble. Another system that would be better is a spread limit but again even though alot could tell what a 12 inch spread looks like alot would make a mistake. Im sure you already knew all of that. As for the buck tag every other year I would be shocked if that ever happened and if it did I think that is a little too drastic and the buck to doe ratio could actually go the other way. Sorry I like to use numbers but right now we harvest around 200,000 deer a year, half are bucks and half are does. Under that law the buck harvest would be decreased to around 50,000 and I would believe that more does would be shot to make up for the bucks not shot, maybe not quite as many. So we would be shooting roughly 150,000 antlerless to 50,000 bucks which even if you didnt consider all the fawns that wouldnt be born due to extra doe harvest after a couple years we would have more bucks than does and the population would be dropping drastically and eventually hunting would be closed. Not sure if it would end up that way thats just my theory. A lottery where maybe 85% of the population gets buck tags would make more sense but I really dont think that would be very popular among the majority of hunters anyways.

[00rowe]

Why should our buck:doe harvest be higher than our buck:doe herd ratio? That's what is going on now, and that's what has to change, if we have the same goals in mind. That's where the states that have better trophy hunting than us differ in management philosophy. If our pre-fawn buck:doe ratio is 1:5. and our harvest is 1:1, we're barely allowing any bucks to survive, let alone mature. If our population is at 1 million deer, that leaves us with about 800,000 does, if we harvest 150,000, not including fawns, our population should still grow with the amount of fawns to replace the does. Of the 200,000 bucks, we are taking half of them, and a good percentage of the ones that aren't taken are yearlings, that'll be shot as 2 year olds. That's were I think the APR will fall short. I think it's better than nothing but there's quicker ways to get where some of want to go.

I do refer to mature as a 3 y.o., but that's just because my standards have dropped for this type of statewide management. A 4 year old is a much different animal than he was the year before, most likely 15-20% more antler. This is the difference diffence between really nice 130"ers and big 160"s.

I do appreciate this being a very civil discussion, very rare, not among sportsman however. Lots of Central MN guys here, glad to see it, maybe that's why OT,Todd, and Wadena Co's are at the top of state in trophy's produced. I'd still like to them reach their potential though.

Mike

[alwaysonthemove]

OK I am a very firm believer to stepping outside the box.

Lets do something different! The old way was boring!

Lets raise our out of state licensees and cut back on ours

[RumRiverRat]

Meh, let people shoot what they want.

[BLACKJACK]

I know that I'm not going to change the minds of the diehard QBM folks. I just post my side of the issue so that the folks in the middle don't get brainwashed by your sides silliness:)

Keep on posting Peatmoss!!! I try to chime in now and then, because I don't want a vocal few to dictate how the deer regs are set. Plus I get tired of reading the long, rambling posts. Wish people would learn how to space things out for easier reading....

Why do they need the DNR to legislate for big bucks when there ARE big bucks out there. Problem is that they have to go hunt them down!!! It would be easier if the DNR would just parade them by every hunter. To heck with the hunters that consider any deer they shoot to be a trophy!!

[Musky Buck]

But BlackJack, do you really believe that when people that have shot umpteen deer in their life truly and honestly consider any deer a trophy ? If so our newspapers, magazines, outdoor news etc. would be receiving thousands of doe and fawn photo's. Our taxidermists would be mounting doe and fawn like crazy. There are some big boys out there certainly. We do hunt hard for that 5% of the deer herd. When I go scout my 3 areas, looking for sheds which are needles in a haystack because 95% are yearling racks and few in numbers, grabbing the trail cams and realize there are 1 to 2 out of a hundred that will be a decent buck next fall, not even what you consider a big buck. I don't need them to "legislate" in my area there needs to be less greed. Less game hogging. Plus in these 3 areas there are roughly 40 deer stands. It would be nice to see a more age balanced herd compared to the young herd of today, we are in a cycle that can't be broke by the way it is. We're talking area 240 only I think, that won't bother your area and if it fails oh well.

[BLACKJACK]

Musky,

A deer doesn't have to hang on the wall to be a trophy. Deer are magnificent animals and any time I shoot one I'm sad yet happy, and the harder I've hunted the more I admire them. I've had years when I've passed on an early doe and sure wish that I had another shot at that doe in December when I'm looking at tag soup.

With the pheasants getting pounded this winter, next fall may be the year that spend less time pheasant hunting and set my standard for a big buck but I know that if thats my goal, I'll have to HUNT lots harder to achieve that goal. I'll have to scout more ground, spend more time behind my spotting scope in the evenings, knock on more doors, spend more time hanging stands, and HUNT harder - but when I get that big buck I will truly appreciate it. And I won't be looking for the DNR to do my work for me.

[BLACKJACK]

Musky,

One more thing. Why do you suppose the NRA fights tooth and nail every gun control measure that comes down the pike? Ban armor penetrating bullets? No, we need them for hunting!! Ban assault rifles?? No, they're not assault rifles, they're hunting rifles!!

Point is the NRA knows that small changes lead to more changes lead to big changes.

The same goes for the deer regs. I'm not convinced that anything is broken. I think the DNR is doing a good job. I'd rather see deer numbers, and any deer regulation that is going to restrict my deer hunting, I'm against. In my opinion this whole horn porn craze is detrimental to deer hunting. What happened to the good old days of going to deer camp and enjoying time with friends and relatives and enjoying the deer woods?

[InTheNorthwoods]

In my opinion this whole horn porn craze is detrimental to deer hunting. What happened to the good old days of going to deer camp and enjoying time with friends and relatives and enjoying the deer woods?

Humans have always admired and been captivated by big antlers, and antler restrictions would have no impact on the ability of people to gather at deer camp and enjoy the time with friends and relatives. If anything, it could provide a greater opportunity for people to realize killing deer isn't the only way to enjoy a hunt or classify the time spent as a success.

Finally, for all the people admonishing the supporters of APR's or changes in regulations, I have yet to see a reason provided by one of those same people why "keeping things the way they are" is any better than the implementation of change. Really the detractors are just a group of of people who want it "their" way, yet they criticize others who want change as being selfish for making people hunt "their" way. It seems just as selfish to me, as hunting is already, and always will be, regulated by the state, and changes to regulations do not always lead to lost opportunity. What have the detractors provided other than "it forces ME to hunt differently and forces ME to limit what I can shoot"? How does the current system promote healthy deer herds and promote the future of the deer herds better than if the various proposed changes were made?

In the end, the decisions should be made to properly manage the deer herds into the future, not to manage the desires of hunters. IMO, atleast the supporters of APR's and change have and can make an argument that it would potentially help the balance of the deer herd and may provide better hunting experiences in the future.

Disclaimer: I am against APR's but would like to see some changes made.

[hockeybc69]

Quote:

for all the people admonishing the supporters of APR's or changes in regulations, I have yet to see a reason provided by one of those same people why "keeping things the way they are" is any better than the implementation of change.

Balancing age structures helps the deer herd. Simple as that.

Right now far too many bucks 1.5 and younger are killed.

APR would be one way for some to live to older ages.

And a nice by-product of letting younger ones get older is that it may satisfy some of us who do like to shoot some older bucks.

Part of the QDMA philosphy:

Quality Deer Management (QDM) is a management philosophy/practice that unites landowners, hunters, and managers in a common goal of producing biologically and socially balanced deer herds within existing environmental, social, and legal constraints. This approach typically involves the protection of young bucks (yearlings and some 2.5 year-olds) combined with an adequate harvest of female deer to maintain a healthy population in balance with existing habitat conditions and landowner desires. This level of deer management involves the production of quality deer (bucks, does, and fawns), quality habitat, quality hunting experiences, and, most importantly, quality hunters.

[00rowe]

Thank you, it's NOT about growing larger antlered bucks, it's about the overall health of the deer herd. Yearling bucks are not supposed to do most of the breeding, which they have to now or does wouldn't get bred. Bigger stronger bucks are better suited to survive the cold winters and deep snow, will win the fight for breeding rights to a doe in estrus, therefore passing on his superior genetics.

Next time anyone's watching deer hunting on TV, check out some of the deer they shoot, body and rack, not always a booner, but most of the time a heavy bodied deer. Lee Lakosky passed on a big nontypical on one show, because he thought it was a 3 year old, knowing it would be a monster if it survived another year. That's what management is all about, not that I'll EVER pass on a 170" deer.

Mike