Any B&C or P&Y MEMBERS?

[PEATMOSS]

I visited these sites looking for some raw data on trophies registered by state for the last 30 years. I've read that Mn has dropped from the #1 ranked state down to around tenth, but what I am curious about is the actual raw data (the # of trophy deer registered each year by state).

This info is only available to members on these sites and I simply don't wanna plunk down the $ just to get this info. If anyone is a member of these organizations and would post the data,(so long as it's not copyrighted) I think we'd all appreciate it.

[Bear55]

I've seen a few old maps that might have had those numbers, they showed how MN was the #1 state from like the 1940's through the 70's but had fallen back to 5 or 6 from 1980 to 2000, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see us down around 10 now. I've hunted for these maps online before but I can't seem to find them, I will dig around again and see if I can find anything new.

[vister]

I can tell ya exactly why we are dropping, but thats a whole different can of worms. it has to do with too many young bucks being shot!!!!

[B. Amish]

we're dropping because i haven't registered my last 4 bucks that would've qualified.

[mrklean]

I can tell ya exactly why we are dropping, but thats a whole different can of worms. it has to do with too many young bucks being shot!!!!

what he said

[tracker x-2]

I agree with ^

[PEATMOSS]

Not trying to start another 10 pager with you antler worshippers, just trying to be open minded and do some research. I'm looking for some raw data, the actual numbers. Anybody know where I can get them short of joining these organizations?

[HooknHorns]

I agree with ya B I hunted real hard to have one in the PY book then when i finally did it was no big deal then never entered any of the deer. Plus spending money to have your name in the book just not my thing.

[Quackaddict9]

I agree with ya B I hunted real hard to have one in the PY book then when i finally did it was no big deal then never entered any of the deer. Plus spending money to have your name in the book just not my thing.

This phenomenon isn't exclusive to Minnesota. People in other states are doing the same thing.

[HooknHorns]

True! I never hunted with an outfitter so maybe someone else can answer this. Do outfitters suggest hunters to put their clients deer in the books to make the state and businesses look better? Seems the clubs books almost advertise for states so they can raise their cost of non resident tags and outfitters can ask a ton of money for a week hunt. Just another thought.

[PEATMOSS]

Bump. Still searching for the raw data here. Hoping someone can help me out.

[Powerstroke]

Someone paid a membership so they can have access to that info....they're not gonna give it away for free. Your best bet is to email or call the organization and ask.

Not trying to start a 10 pager either, but what is the purpose of your inquiry?

Hook- I would definitely believe that outfitters and guides encourage registering in order to promote their business and the state. Look at Illinois for proof of that. I think MN has more trophy potential than shows in the books, but I do agree that our state lags behind others because of our management. Those who have areas that routinely produce treat them like fishing honey holes. Keep it quiet and you'll have it to yourself.

[Bear55]

Here is some good info, Boone and Crockett only but better then nothing. We are listed as number #2 all time through 2001, I'm sure we have fallen hard the past decade or so. Up until 1979 no one could touch us, even the mighty WI & IL were a very distant 2nd and 3rd. Its pretty amazing to see what they have done from 1980 to 2001 and they probably have even more impressive numbers if this list was updated through 2009.

State............1830-2001.......1830-1979.......1980-2001

1.Iowa...........615.............108.............507

2.Minnesota....608.............315.............293

3.Wisconsin.....589.............194.............395

4.Illinois.........552.............43..............509

5.Texas..........316.............157.............159

6.Missouri.......285.............41..............244

7.Kentucky.....279.............37..............242

8.Kansas........255.............20..............235

9.Ohio...........235.............36..............199

10Michigan.....155.............55..............100

Sorry about all the ... but my spaces weren't showing up the first try.

Hopefully I don't get banned for linking this but I will take my chances, it has some quality info.

http://www.boone-crockett.org/pdf/geographicwhiteail.pdf

[PEATMOSS]

Thanks Bear, that is the kind of data I'm looking for and I'm hoping to find more.

Powerstroke- Like most people on here, I have other interests and belong to other organizations. I try to share what I can, even if the info comes from an organization that I pay dues into.I didn't think my request was way out there. The reason that I'm looking for this data is so that I can educate myself on an issue that I am passionate about.

[Crappie Rage]

Let's look at my own experience and we will go the last 20 years of archery hunting. I won't count the first 8 years of archery hunting in MN as I was not an accomplished archer so to speak.

Years hunting MN 20 P&Y bucks 3 One on a drive.

Years hunting IA 4 P&Y bucks 3

Years hunting KS 3 P&Y bucks 3

Years hunting MO 1 P&Y bucks 1

Years hunting IL 1 P&Y bucks 0 Missed P&Y Bucks 2

Years hunting ND badlands 2 P&Y bucks 0

Number of bucks entered in Pope and Young 0.

So yes, guys are shooting record book deer in other states and not entering them, just like MN.

[Bear55]

I really don't feel MN is a terrible state for large bucks, of course that also depends on who you compare us to, what land you have access too, luck, and how much time/effort you put into your scouting and hunting.

Looking at the numbers MN and Texas are the only states to produce about the same number of bucks from 80 to 2001 then we did in the previous 150 years. Everyone else doubled or had a much higher percentage of BC bucks. Now you might argue we have had consistent big buck hunting over the years and you might even be right. However looking at what Iowa and Illinois have done from 1980 to 2001 its pretty easy to tell they are doing something we are not and a lot of that has to do with shooting young bucks.

[LightningBG]

Although this information is very interesting and thanks for posting. It really doesn't tell us anything about what is the cause of our success/failure or if we are in fact failing or succeeding.

A lot of other states are increasing their percentage in comparison to MN, but we are increasing our success at the same time. We posted almost as much in 20 years as we had posted in the previous 150 years. Is this failure? Is it possible that others are simply catching up to us? Kansas had an increase of 1,175% (great for them), but we still have a higher number, so whats better? WI doubled their numbers, but as far as I know, have done little along the lines of QDM (and I hunt WI extensively).

Personally, I see these stats as a reason to celebrate for those states that have increased their numbers, but not a reason for us to be upset. There are just too many other factors involved, including climate, hunting pressure, land usage, regulations, reporting levels, etc, etc. I have never reported a single deer and doubt that I ever will, but the numbers I've been seeing for the past 5-10 years have been increasing and so has the quality in the areas I hunt.

[Jameson]

We have had a few years of very low deer numbers in our Minnesota history. How do other states deer numbers compare over the years? At some point I believe they were trapping Midwest deer to be released in the southern regions to repopulate their herds after over-harvest.

[nonteepical]

Minnesota deer populations in the 80's were in the 600,000 range according to DNR records, in the new millenium we topped the million mark and haven't increased our B&C enteries. Although i don't have the other states's deer populations i'm pretty sure they increased in that time period too. Now relook at the chart we are the only ones to decrease entries with our brown it's down management plan.

[Bear55]

Lightning I agree these numbers are just a small sample and there are many other things to take into consideration. However these number are still telling a story, it should be an eye opener that in 20 years Iowa and Illinois almost matched Minnesota's BC all time totals.

WI may not have as many QDM regs as other states but they do have a later gun season and I believe that helps them grow larger bucks. I also look at WI overall and I get the general feeling (no proof) that more people practice QDM in WI than we do in MN - the numbers do suggest that. Its this voluntary mind set that set many of these other state apart. You may not see much QDM in the part of WI you hunt and MN has some hot spots that produce large bucks but for a state that was once the top state, and maybe top five all time we are probably better known for bear hunting then we are deer.

[PEATMOSS]

Anyone got any of the numbers from 2001-present like Bear55's chart?

I have been on the DNR sites of all the midwest states and searched all over, but finding raw data on deer harvest numbers has proven very elusive.

[Cooter]

In regards to QDM in WI, its here big time.

[LightningBG]

In regards to QDM in WI, its here big time.

The question is... Is it by regulation or by choice/social factors?

IMO its social pressure. (i.e. Whoever shoots a buck under 8pt owes the camp a case of beer, under 6 pt is a case + $100, etc)

I'm all about harassing/razzing a fellow hunter/friend for taking a deer they shouldn't have. They'll learn soon enough whats acceptable.

[harvey lee]

I can tell ya exactly why we are dropping, but thats a whole different can of worms. it has to do with too many young bucks being shot!!!!

Agreed.

[harvey lee]

Yes, Iowa is #1 and I believe they do not allow a mass slaughter of deer during the rut. I think their hunt is later.