No more party hunting in Zone 3, SE MN

[Bear55]

I hate to respond with another question, but...

What kind of stock would you rather be given/inherit? one that is seeing growth or one that has been high for the last 30 years?

I'd take the stable high value one.

A lot of people are buying stock in SE MN right now, should be some good hunting this season and even better down the road.

On a personal note I wouldn't mind inheriting some blue chip Iowa farmland stock at any time. I also have a high risk speculative position in MN, hoping that "some day" the hunters in my group see the benefits of letting the little guys grow up. Some of these have seen the light but rest will need some time.

[nonteepical]

I can't argue with "my dad said" logic, but...

From 1830-1979, Mn produced about 300 Booners. That's about 2/year.

From 1980-2001, Mn produced about 300 Booners. That's about 15/year.

What am I missing?

a doubled/ tripled deer population

[CodyDawg]

Well Peatmoss,

Since you didnt even list a source, tell me how you know that other states had neglible deer populations and then please show me how MN was so different. MN even closed the deer season in the 70s, right? Doesnt sound like there was many around that year. As for what you are missing?

MN 2/yr then 15/yr....your numbers. Lets look at the other states which you conveniently didnt inlcude (and correct the MN numbers):

MN 2.1/yr to 13.9/yr or an increase of 6.6 times the original number

IA 0.72/yr to 24/yr or an increase of 33.3 times

WI 1.3/yr to 18.8/yr or an increase of 14.4 times

IL 0.3/yr to 24.2/yr or an increase of 80.7 times

MO 0.28/yr to 11.6 or an increase of 41.4 times.

Gee, which number sticks out on that list? All the other states are seeing double digit increases in entries per year and MN is not. We used to dominate, now we are in last place in terms of increase and all but Misery shoot more per year. Again, there is no denying that MN was once the big buck king and now we are second fiddle. Go ahead and argue the why, but you just cant argue the numbers.

[LightningBG]

MN 2/yr then 15/yr....your numbers. Lets look at the other states which you conveniently didnt inlcude (and correct the MN numbers):

MN 2.1/yr to 13.9/yr or an increase of 6.6 times the original number

IA 0.72/yr to 24/yr or an increase of 33.3 times

WI 1.3/yr to 18.8/yr or an increase of 14.4 times

IL 0.3/yr to 24.2/yr or an increase of 80.7 times

MO 0.28/yr to 11.6 or an increase of 41.4 times.

Gee, which number sticks out on that list? All the other states are seeing double digit increases in entries per year and MN is not. We used to dominate, now we are in last place in terms of increase and all but Misery shoot more per year. Again, there is no denying that MN was once the big buck king and now we are second fiddle. Go ahead and argue the why, but you just cant argue the numbers.

Those statistics you conjured up are garbage. I'm sorry but they are.

Bob makes $1000 week at work and gets a raise of $250, a 25% increase to 1250/wk

Joe makes $100 a week at work and gets a raise of $100, a 100% increase to $200/wk

Looks like Juan is the big winner right? Silly.

[PEATMOSS]

Well Peatmoss,

Since you didnt even list a source, tell me how you know that other states had neglible deer populations and then please show me how MN was so different. MN even closed the deer season in the 70s, right? Doesnt sound like there was many around that year. As for what you are missing?

MN 2/yr then 15/yr....your numbers. Lets look at the other states which you conveniently didnt inlcude (and correct the MN numbers):

MN 2.1/yr to 13.9/yr or an increase of 6.6 times the original number

IA 0.72/yr to 24/yr or an increase of 33.3 times

WI 1.3/yr to 18.8/yr or an increase of 14.4 times

IL 0.3/yr to 24.2/yr or an increase of 80.7 times

MO 0.28/yr to 11.6 or an increase of 41.4 times.

Gee, which number sticks out on that list? All the other states are seeing double digit increases in entries per year and MN is not. We used to dominate, now we are in last place in terms of increase and all but Misery shoot more per year. Again, there is no denying that MN was once the big buck king and now we are second fiddle. Go ahead and argue the why, but you just cant argue the numbers.

Obviously, I have some strong opinions on this subject. Unlike alot of others, I have been trying to keep an open mind and do some homework on the subject.

Iowa, for instance had almost no deer at the turn of the 20th century. In 1936 the population was estimated at only 500-700 animals in the entire state. In 1950, the population had risen to an estimated 10,000 deer statewide and a season was held with a harvest of 4,000 animals. Today, Iowa has an estimated deer population of around 200,000 deer and a harvest of 100,000 animals. All of this information is available on the Iowa DNR HSOforum. I have not been able to pin down the numbers from Kansas and Illinois, but I'm working on it. All of these states had similar agricultural practices and I'm going to be very surprised if the numbers don't show a significant population explosion, particularly starting in the mid eighties.

[nonteepical]

Juan IS the big winner, they're shooting nice bucks in mexico! Joe is also a big winner he just doubled his current lifestyle and bob might be lucky to go deer hunting for a week with a 25% increase. (knowing his wife)

[LightningBG]

Juan IS the big winner, they're shooting nice bucks in mexico! Joe is also a big winner he just doubled his current lifestyle and bob might be lucky to go deer hunting for a week with a 25% increase. (knowing his wife)

My mistake. Joe is Juan, or Juan is Joe, either way, they were supposed to be the same name.

Point being, just because you have a big increase doesn't mean your better of than someone who was better off to begin with.

(for some reason it wouldn't let me edit the original post)

BTW - Juan now works for Polaris.

[Coach1310]

The other issue here..... IF it works as well as most folks hope it will in SE MN, do you think the amount of land available to the average Joe will be the same???? You may end up with bigger bucks and more of them, BUT it will turn into the Iowa/Illinois land grab scenario if it works as well as many hope.... Some of those "we have been hunting the Johnson farm for years.." will turn into... "we hunted the Johnson farm for years, until they sold/leased..."

[CodyDawg]

Well Lightning, just because you dont understand them doesnt make them garbage. I very clearly showed that 3 states (IA, IL, WI) went from shooting way less to shooting way more per year. I also included a factor to illustrate just how drastically other states have gotten bigger and minnesota has not (comparatively). Peatmoss is the one who stated that MN going from 2 to 15 was a huge jump and in fact it is not when compared to other states. You cant just call statistics garbage if they do not support your position. I also included MO, which although took a bigger jump percentagewise, is still slightly under MN in terms of actual numbers shot. I included this even though it does not completely support my position...you have to take the good with the bad with stats.

Very simply put, explain why IA, WI, and IL used to shoot way less and now they are shooting way more? The stats dont lie, they used to shoot less, now they shoot more. you cannot deny that. As i have continually stated, you can argue the why, you CANNOT argue that it is true.

[nonteepical]

that is a legitimate concern but we have to get to that point first, it's a ways off.

[PEATMOSS]

Seriously Cody? You really, honestly can't understand how an exponential population explosion would cause a similar spike in trophy animals?

As the population levels out in these states the astronomical spike in trophies is likely to level off as well.

[Getanet]

Very simply put, explain why IA, WI, and IL used to shoot way less and now they are shooting way more?

Well, here's one theory. Each of these states are now littered with hunting preserves that are strictly managed for large whitetail. Get enough of these hunting preserves and you're going to see your B&C/P&Y numbers go up.

Oh sure, there's some cost involved - but what's $5 or 6 grand for the chance at a nice buck?

I'm sure MN's B&C/P&Y numbers would skyrocket too if we strove for large chunks or private land with the best food plots and limited amount of hunting pressure. Then our state could glow red on the map too... If we're going to base our deer management strategy on B&C/P&Y numbers let's go whole hog.

If you don't believe me just Google Buffalo County Hunting and see how many results there are for Buffalo County outfitters. The original B&C/P&Y map came from this link http://www.huntbuffalocounty.com/index.html. It will help explain why so many of these deer are harvested there.

At least that's one theory...

[Jameson]

Minnesota has been having Special Hunts with varying regs for years. The purpose of the varying regs was to see how they effected the deer population and to see how hunters reacted to them. Does anyone know if the data collected from these efforts is public and if so where to find it?

It seems the data from the Special Hunts are not being publicized when a good opportunity is present. Anyone?

[lakevet]

Minnesota has been having Special Hunts with varying regs for years. The purpose of the varying regs was to see how they effected the deer population and to see how hunters reacted to them. Does anyone know if the data collected from these efforts is public and if so where to find it?

It seems the data from the Special Hunts are not being publicized when a good opportunity is present. Anyone?

I suspect the special hunts are primarily the hunters who readily travel to pursue specific opportunities, which is different from hunters who faithfully hunt traditional family hunting grounds. This would skew/bias proposed regs towards those favored by the hunter who readily travels to hunt a specific opportunity vs hunting group/person who hunts the family farm or hunting camp in good deer populations and bad.

lakevet

[LightningBG]

Well Lightning, just because you dont understand them doesnt make them garbage. I very clearly showed that 3 states (IA, IL, WI) went from shooting way less to shooting way more per year. I also included a factor to illustrate just how drastically other states have gotten bigger and minnesota has not (comparatively). Peatmoss is the one who stated that MN going from 2 to 15 was a huge jump and in fact it is not when compared to other states. You cant just call statistics garbage if they do not support your position. I also included MO, which although took a bigger jump percentagewise, is still slightly under MN in terms of actual numbers shot. I included this even though it does not completely support my position...you have to take the good with the bad with stats.

Very simply put, explain why IA, WI, and IL used to shoot way less and now they are shooting way more? The stats dont lie, they used to shoot less, now they shoot more. you cannot deny that. As i have continually stated, you can argue the why, you CANNOT argue that it is true.

Perhaps my language was too strong in saying they were garbage. My apologies. They are true, the numbers dont lie. The problem comes in the interpretation and what was stressed (the % or x increase from one state to the next). We could have had bigger increases if our previous numbers were just smaller, but that wouldn't have been a positive thing. 2 to 15 is a huge jump as are all of the other states you listed. Ours just wasn't as huge. Why are we comparing ourselves with other states anyways? We're talking about 15 vs 20 deer per year out of how many? Minnesota ranges from 150,000 -290,000 harvested per year (for the past 20 years) Statistically that amounts to almost nothing. (approx 1 in 15,000)

And how does any of this relate to party hunting? WI has had greater increases than us and and increase in general and they party hunt!

[lakevet]

Thanks for persisting in asking the question:

IF PARTY HUNTING AND CROSS TAGGING IS SO DETRIMENTAL TO RAISING MATURE BUCKS, THEN WHY IS IOWA AND WISCONSIN (AND MINNESOTA IN THE PAST) ABLE TO DO IT?????

lakevet

[LightningBG]

Holy shnikies.

I just looked at the total deer harvest for 2009 WI vs. MN

MN harvested approx 194,000

WI harvested approx 329,000

I sure hope there having higher P&Y and B&C numbers with that many more deer in general.

[lakevet]

2009 Iowa deer harvest 136,507.

[96trigger]

Cody,

your number are good, and they are true. However, the other guys are right that you do have to compare the total harvest to have a better understanding of where we are. A better way of determining where we are at would be to compare the number of B&C entries with the number of deer harvested and see who made the most gains. There is a statistical analysis that would let you know if those numbers are significant. But roughly, lets compare Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin. Wi had an increase in B&C entries, but also had a large deer harvest compared to Minnesota and Iowa. Iowa has a smaller deer harvest and still produces more B&C deer. Minnesota, is still producing similar B&C deer numbers that it always has, but the harvest has greatly increased in the past 30 years, we should be seeing similar increases in B&C entries, but we aren't. The lack of increase in B&C entries is not correlating with the increase in population and harvest. Why is that? Because we are shooting too many young bucks, plain and simple. Iowa really is the winner, they are producing more B&C entries with a much smaller harvest.

[lakevet]

while still allowing party hunting and buck cross tagging......

lakevet

[candiru]

From an old book I have these are deer population numbers from 1946

MN - 609,700

WI - 791,000

IA - 2,000

MO - 22,000

KS - zero

IL - 5,100

[Rippinlip]

What about the ability to hunt land, lots of private owned land in this state and others. How would you feel if you were only able to hunt public or small 5-10 acreas pieces of land like some of us do, would you still be pushing for this??

If I owned a chunck of land (eg 40 acres plus), I would be possibilly pushing for the APR or no cross tagging, cause I would have my chances POSSIBLY at a larger buck if that is what I wanted.

Myself I want Venison 1st and a quality buck 2nd.

I have a wall mount of my 1st buck with a bow on the wall (125'ish), I have shot some close to that range during slug season and never shoulder mounted any of them, but we when we slug hunted we all loved the taste of vension, some deer did walk and most of us did choose to let deer walk when we wanted, BUT WE HAD THE CHOICE!!!!!.

Now once your antlered tag is filled you can not pull the trigger on another antlered deer no matter what.

So has anyone confirmed if this pertains to all seasons? Bow & Muzzy too?

[96trigger]

Quote:

What about the ability to hunt land, lots of private owned land in this state and others. How would you feel if you were only able to hunt public or small 5-10 acreas pieces of land like some of us do, would you still be pushing for this??

If this was the case I would be more for changes than ever. 5-10 acres isn't enough land to manage deer on your own. But if the whole state decides to manage for a more mature deer population, the odds of a more mature buck making its way onto that small chunk of land just increased dramatically. The only way it will work to manage your own area is sto happy hundreds of acres of woodland, or get together with the neighbors, unfortunately, neither is very viable. 40 acres isn't enough.

[PEATMOSS]

Cody,

your number are good, and they are true. However, the other guys are right that you do have to compare the total harvest to have a better understanding of where we are. A better way of determining where we are at would be to compare the number of B&C entries with the number of deer harvested and see who made the most gains. There is a statistical analysis that would let you know if those numbers are significant. But roughly, lets compare Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin. Wi had an increase in B&C entries, but also had a large deer harvest compared to Minnesota and Iowa. Iowa has a smaller deer harvest and still produces more B&C deer. Minnesota, is still producing similar B&C deer numbers that it always has, but the harvest has greatly increased in the past 30 years, we should be seeing similar increases in B&C entries, but we aren't. The lack of increase in B&C entries is not correlating with the increase in population and harvest. Why is that? Because we are shooting too many young bucks, plain and simple. Iowa really is the winner, they are producing more B&C entries with a much smaller harvest.

Trigger,

Your side keeps quoting the B&C stats to create this hysteria that we need to criminalize shooting forkies and 6-pointers. IF your side REALLY feels that we need to regain our ranking in the record books, perhaps it's time to examine your sides hunting practices.

It appears as though your party shot four nice "quality" bucks last fall including that 9-pointer you shot(very nice deer by the way). But, just like the forkhorn my brother shot last year, they're all dead and none of these will make the record book.

I'm really curious about your mindset with regards to killing this 9-pointer. Was it your personal best? If not, why did you shoot it? This whole B&C argument you guys keep bringing up seems like a "have your cake and eat it too" situation to me. You use these stats to keep the public land peasants and weekend warriors from shooting forkies and sixers and at the same time, your side is free from any responsibility and can pile up antlered bucks like cordwood so long as they meet your "quality" standard.

IF you're really concerned about our B&C standing, maybe you should be preaching a "shoot your best,leave the rest" ethic amongst yourselves and if you're not willing to do this then perhaps your don't really have the moral authority to use these stats to push your real agenda.

[Bear55]

Today, Iowa has an estimated deer population of around 200,000 deer and a harvest of 100,000 animals.

You have to admit its pretty crazy what Iowa can produce with 1/5th of our deer population.

Like I said before these numbers are just a small sample so they can't be taken too seriously but they do tell a story. To me that story is other stats are doing a better job of producing more mature bucks, you can argue how they are doing it but there is no denying that they have more mature deer. It would be nice is someone could complete a small party of the puzzle and get some numbers for the last 10 years.