The gift of the deer tag vs trophy bucks

[Getanet]

Now...

For my own indulgence and want of understanding of the position of those of you who are advocates of party hunting, I have a couple questions:

1. Do you feel like when you buy a tag you are buying a deer, or alternatively, that a deer is owed to you because you buy a tag? Or, are you buying a chance at a deer?

2. Is it only worth hunting, or was the hunt only successful and fulfilling, if your (or every) tag is filled?

3. For those worried about taking opportunities away from youngsters, is a hunt only successful if the youngster is pulling the trigger? Or is there value and learning experiences in sharing in a situation where dad shoots a deer after youngster fills his tag?

Just trying to understand the underlying reasoning and mentality and/or the circumstances that lead to your positions.

1) Buying a chance at a deer.

2) Of course not. Rarely does our group "fill out." I think there is a huge misconception of party hunting that groups fill out annually. Maybe in certain parts of the state, not where I hunt. In fact, that's why my family and two others started party hunting decades before I was born. They never filled out and split whatever meat they got evenly among the group.

3)I'm not worried about taking opportunities away from youngsters. I think in some ways we're coddling them too much with special regs and seasons. Kids who grow up in hunting families are either going to want to hunt or they're not.

I find it interesting that many party hunters think "I'll fill my own tag" guys are the selfish ones, and at the exact same time many of the "own tag" guys think the party hunters are selfish.

[schmoe147]

I feel nobody needs to shoot more than ONE buck per season. I love the new rule. If you want meat go shoot one, dont have someone else shoot you one, thats called lazy. Now I know people are going to say what about people that are unable to hunt. There is not one person I know that would want to hunt that cant. If you can find one then they should get a special permit but it should be a valid reason they are unable to hunt. Just my opinion. Let the arguing begin.

[BRULEDRIFTER]

BruleDrifter- your picture looks all too familiar, you would't happen to be from the Brainerd area?

Nope! Just found the pic randomly on the internet and thought it was a perfect avatar pic.

[nonteepical]

looks just like al lindner

[BRULEDRIFTER]

I think getting together with family and friends at deer camp, telling stories of hunts (or plain [PoorWordUsage]), and being outdoors and seeing deer is more fulfilling than shooting a deer or filling all the tags ever will be.

[InTheNorthwoods]

1) I buy a tag for the privilege and excitement of going hunting and to get out into the woods with my family and hunt for a deer for a chance to put organic meat into my freezer to enjoy rather then hormone laden, disease ridden, poorly cared for beef.

2)No way! The hunt is all about the camaraderie and spending time with the group and sharing the harvest.

3)A hunt is successful for a youngster if they HAVE FUN! If they only have fun by shooting a monster buck they should find a new hobby, or a better mentor.

[BRULEDRIFTER]

I want to know what makes you adamently oppose a ban on party hunting? What would be different for your seasons, is it tradition? The quantity of meat? Just wondering.

For me, a ban on party hunting will change the whole atmosphere of the hunt. There are usually 8 of us in our party and the last few years there are probably only 3-5 deer taken per year (However, there were a few years where NONE were taken). I don't think we've EVER "limited out".

There are a few in the group that are still young and in shape that can put in the time and at times can see a lot of deer. But there are also a few that don't get around so well that are limited to the places they can go and tend to not see a whole lot of deer. (except my old man, he has a money spot near the truck, so that's awesome! )

But I guess if we could no longer "party hunt" that would mean that once someone fills a tag, they're done hunting. Hang up the rifle and the orange and settle in and wait for the end of the week. The only thing they can do all day while everyone else is in the woods it chill at camp or the truck and help drag deer. Not the worst thing, I guess, but considering the time and money invested, it would be nice to still be able to hunt to help the "party" get more venison. It would be a major drag to shoot a deer on opening day and not be able to hunt with the party anymore. Might as well have everyone drive up solo so they can leave when they shoot their deer.

I guess it really comes down to a mindset and what you feel the hunting tradition is all about. If you can't understand now the reasons why those who are against banning party hunting, you never will. I think the reasons the people that are opposed to banning party hunting, APR's, and the whole modern push of deer management are so against it is because it takes away the true meaning of what the hunting tradition is based on. Gone are the days of sharing and helping, comradarie, being a part of something special, enjoying the harvest for the food and betterment of the family. Now days it seems like it's become a competitive sport where all that should be considerered is getting the highest score and bragging rights.

All for one & one for all! Kinda sad, actually.

But like I said before, as long as this rule remains ONLY in effect for zones that have bonus tags, it's a little easier to stomach. I just hope it doesn't go statewide... At least until the old timers I hunt with are gone. Then I'll pretty much be a solo hunter anyway and it won't matter.

[Jameson]

...as long as this rule remains ONLY in effect for zones that have bonus tags...

Where does it say this doesn't effect Lottery areas in zone 3? Or are you somehow aware that their are no Lottery areas in zone 3 this year?

[BRULEDRIFTER]

As I understand it, for this year the ban on cross tagging only affects the zones in zone 3 that the DNR is experimenting with. Maybe I'm wrong on that?

[LightningBG]

Brule, I think your explanation 3 posts ago is spot on. That's how I feel anyways and I'm guessing that's how most feel who are against the ban of party hunting.

[InTheNorthwoods]

Brule - I'm not saying that I can't or don't understand why people party hunt. I can see why they do it, I just happen to disagree with party hunting as I think it goes against the spirit of each person buying a license. That is just my position. I don't want it to seem like I think "my way is better than yours" - that certainly isn't the case. I just wanted to know the reasoning behind those that support it and try to break it down to its core, far to often these things turn into a "my way is better" moaning contest without ever hearing any type of explanation.

I can certainly understand the issue of hunters not wanting to enter the field after tagging out, but at the same time, however, I know that many times people will continue to aid in the hunt after they have filled their tag and help with drives or sitting on stand with others - they just don't pull the trigger for the other person.

To me, the spirit of buying your own license is that you are buying the opportunity for you (the individual) to take a deer. Then again, some of my emphasis on the individuality of the hunt has to do with being a bowhunter, being selective, and wanting to shoot what I want to shoot - not letting someone else make that decision for me, or taking an opportunity away from another hunter who would like to shoot a deer. Does that make me selfish (as I have seen offered in regards to the not allowing party hunting argument), I don't think so. I think it makes perfect sense as I can't think of many other examples of where an individual license can be transferred to be used or fulfilled by another individual in that persons name. But that isn't to say I am going to run someone down who wants to allow their tag to be filled by someone else as long as its legal. But that still leaves a bit of a funny taste in my mouth when I know that someone might be shooting their second buck of the season that happens to be one I had passed up hoping it would grow another year or more when the law allows one buck per person - that deer, which is part of the pool of animals owned by the state, is now out of the pool of available animals that I paid an opportunity to harvest.

So in the end, the question becomes to me, what do we value more as a hunting community? Do we value an individual's right to fill their own tag and try to protect that right by not allowing party hunting, or do we value an individual's right to choose how their tag is filled and allow party hunting?

The answer is just a difference of opinion I guess.

[Rippinlip]

So now I have a question for the ones that are advocates for no party hunting or cross-tagging.

Are you against all cross-tagging or just for the antlered deer?

I am getting a feeling that people only feel this way when it comes to antlers.

[LightningBG]

I think it makes perfect sense as I can't think of many other examples of where an individual license can be transferred to be used or fulfilled by another individual in that persons name.

How about fishing? You and your kid (or wife or buddy) go out fishing. The limit is 6 fish. Ideally you'd like to bring home 8 (to make a meal for the rest of the family back in the cabin). You're kid cant seem to land anything. Do you stop at 6 and go home? Do you stop fishing and wait for him/her to hopefully catch 2 more? Do you fish together for a little longer to get those 2 more?

[LOTWSvirgin]

So if was reading the outdoor news right you can still cross tag antlerless deer just not bucks?? If that's the case whats the big deal???

[nonteepical]

it's all about letting the 1.5 year old bucks live one more year. when they're 2.5 years old you can make hamburger out of them if you want, but they will be one year wiser and a better percentage of them will slip through the cracks to get an older age class. again, party hunting isn't getting banned, you can still hunt together, deer drives to get unfilled tags filled ect. if you have a week to fill your tag and at 7:05 opening morning you shoot a spike and your excuse is all we see are spikes, then don't you see a need for the regulations? if you shot a big 10 pointer i'm sure you wouldn't be dissapointed in the season. As for the seniors in our party they're just happy to be there but they also say they don't see the quality of bucks they used to 30-40 years ago either.

[InTheNorthwoods]

So now I have a question for the ones that are advocates for no party hunting or cross-tagging.

Are you against all cross-tagging or just for the antlered deer?

I am getting a feeling that people only feel this way when it comes to antlers.

It is my feeling that if a tag has your name on it, whether it be a buck or a doe tag, it should be you who pulls the trigger to fill the tag. Now in areas where a person can get multiple bonus tags, I guess I could see an argument for cross-tagging because these tags are issued in the name of reducing deer numbers. But overall, I would say the hunter who has the tag should be the one taking the animal.

I won't lie and say that I don't want to see more small bucks live another year or two, but I don't really want to see people regulated to death to get to that point. I think everyone should have the opportunity to make the decision on what animal they want to shoot, but again, I think since it is their license, it is their responsibility to pull the trigger to make that decision.

[InTheNorthwoods]

How about fishing? You and your kid (or wife or buddy) go out fishing. The limit is 6 fish. Ideally you'd like to bring home 8 (to make a meal for the rest of the family back in the cabin). You're kid cant seem to land anything. Do you stop at 6 and go home? Do you stop fishing and wait for him/her to hopefully catch 2 more? Do you fish together for a little longer to get those 2 more?

That would be one of the few examples I could think of.

In atleast some states party fishing would be illegal - I know it is in N.D. Its in the same vein as the party hunting deal for me. By definition, when a license is issued it means that someone is being issued permission to do something. When you (an individual) buy a license you are buying a chance to fish. With that license and chance, you are allowed to take some of the States' resources - i.e. your limit. An individual cannot transfer that license to someone else to use for the day - that is your license that the State has issued to you (the individual). Consequently, a person cannot let someone else use their license and have that person fill their limit and use their license for a day. Yet, in our state, if you are in the same boat with another person who is licensed, we allow one person to catch/kill more than their license allows for in the name of party fishing/hunting - to me, the logic doesn't follow. If a license is given to an individual, if there is no right to fill a limit on the license, it seems to me that the person who is licensed should be the one responsible for catching their own fish. That is just my personal opinion.

Again, I'm not saying I don't understand the other side of the coin, I just don't happen to agree with it. If everyone agreed with everything, it would be no fun...

[BRULEDRIFTER]

I'm going to revert back to what Lakevet posted to start this thread. He summed it up better then I ever could.

In the end, it is just a matter of opinion and how regulated you want to be in the woods. Until this goes state wide, everything I posted is speculation. If the folks in Zone 3 want this regulation, then by all means, have at it. Props out to you for being the sates guinea pigs!

We'll see how this all works itself out after a few years. Until then, I'm going to continue to enjoy bow hunting by myself and enjoy rifle hunting with the old timers in our party until they are unable to. And hopefully, if someone shoots a buck early in the season and there are very few if anymore deer shot by the end of the week, if that same person has another opportunity to shoot another deer, I'll gladly put a tag on it.

Happy hunting, All!

[Bear55]

A lot of hunting is opportunity, I know my hunts are better when I see or have an opportunity to shoot a deer. Party hunting is the single largest way to take an opportunity away from one hunter and give that opportunity to another hunter who has already shot a deer.

The more young bucks I pass on the more I see the opportunity I give to other hunters in my group and neighboring hunters. I don't always like it because part of me wouldn't mind seeing that deer make it to another season but I am happy for the shooter and I am glad they got an opportunity to shoot a deer on their own. Me shooting that deer for them might put food on the table but a lot of times you can't put a price tag on the opportunity for someone to shoot their own deer.

[lakevet]

it's all about letting the 1.5 year old bucks live one more year.......................... As for the seniors in our party they're just happy to be there but they also say they don't see the quality of bucks they used to 30-40 years ago either.

Interesting how Minnesota 30-40 years ago had the quality of big bucks so desired while also allowing cross tagging of bucks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Just like Iowa and Wisconsin do today! This reg is a pet project that is a low return while creating a lot of friction with 50% in favor vs the other 50%. All while past history in Minnesota and the continuing recent track record of two neighboring states show this regulation is not needed to accomplish big buck production coveted by some. Why take away the gift of the tag when another way was taken in the past in Minnesota and presently is done in Iowa and Wisconsin?!?!?!?! Why go out of your way to destroy another's family tradition when it is unnecessary?? Why can't we co exist? Basically this regulation is management by opinion/personal preference because our history and our neighbors show this is not needed.

I still haven't heard an in depth rebuttal to why Wisconsin and Iowa today and Minnesota 40 years ago could produce big bucks while having party hunting and buck cross tagging but now all the sudden it is impossible to do in Minnesota. Do we as Minnesotans today say Wisconsin and Iowa and previous generations of Minnesota DNR game managers and hunters did/are doing the impossible??????

I know this is a hot button and you are watching to see how the dust settles, but Lou could you just post some studies without opinion or comment that prove me wrong? What % increase in 3 1/2 to 5 1/2 year old bucks are PROVEN to occur by banning cross tagging vs. moving the hunt off the rut.

To save bucks, big and small, move it BACK off the rut like it was before in Minnesota. Iowa DNR states that as a major factor in buck survival and a cornerstone of their buck management. If hunters were educated about this, the results of surveys would change. A population surveyed shows both their opinion and the facts they are in command of. Repeat something often enough and people believe it. Well, its time to repeat,

Why/how did Minnesota in the past, and Iowa and Wisconsin today, produce more big bucks that many want while allowing party hunting/ buck cross tagging??? Why can't Minnesota today do this so called impossible thing. How many times does it have to be repeated, both groups can get what they want, but not this way. We can have more mature bucks and have party hunting / cross tagging of all sexes of deer.

WE CAN HAVE THE GIFT OF THE TAG AND PLENTY OF MATURE BUCKS.

TO SAY IT CAN"T BE DONE IS TO SAY IOWA AND WISCONSIN HAVE LOUSY BUCK HUNTING BECAUSE THEY ALLOW CROSS TAGGING OF BUCKS.

Sorry for the rant, but this seems so obvious and I am passionate about keeping a 100+ year family tradition from needlessly being killed off.

lakevet

[96trigger]

" the gift of the tag" Do you remember why crosstagging was legal?? Do you really? It was because not everyone got a coveted doe tag. Are there people out there that can't get their own buck tag? Are we in a lottery area for buck tags?

Dad, "Here son, take my buck tag, you shot a nice one, you can have it"

Son, " Thanks dad, but I can use mine."

I don't understand the need to give someone a tag when they have their own. As for being done hunting when you limit is full, that happens to me more often than not. I still get a lot of enjoyment from checking in with my family and friends who aren't done. It truly is not the worst thing in the world to be done. In most cases, you don't have to be done if you don't want to. There have been many years that I just sit on a doe tag so I can still be in the woods with everyone else, even though I had opportunities to fill out. You don't have to shoot the first, or every deer that walks by.

During the doe lottery area, crosstagging was often needed just to put venison on the table, this is not so in the areas that this is taking place. Not everyone was able to shoot a doe.

Lakevet, I value your opinion, you are very passionate about it. Nothing has changed yet for you. I don't know if it will. Lets just see how zone 3 pans out. Might be successful, might not. I like that we are trying.

[Bear55]

I still haven't heard an in depth rebuttal to why Wisconsin and Iowa today and Minnesota 40 years ago could produce big bucks while having party hunting and buck cross tagging but now all the sudden it is impossible to do in Minnesota. Do we as Minnesotans today say Wisconsin and Iowa and previous generations of Minnesota DNR game managers and hunters did/are doing the impossible??????

I will try and explain what I think is happening. 40 years ago there was a lot less hunting pressure and a lot more land for bucks to slip through the cracks and live to an older age. Hunters didn't know nearly as much about whitetails as they do no and advances in hunting gear have made us far more efficient hunters.

Iowa and WI don't have their rifle seasons during the peak of the rut so that alone allows some bucks to survive the rut and reach maturity. I also think modern day Iowa and WI hunters are more likely to let young bucks walk while their MN counterparts tend to lean more towards brown its down. Now I am speaking in general overall terms, many places in WI might be brown its down and there are plenty of places in MN where hunters let the young deer go and have plenty of mature bucks around.

[BRULEDRIFTER]

I also think modern day Iowa and WI hunters are more likely to let young bucks walk while their MN counterparts tend to lean more towards brown its down.

This is a statement I will never buy. Where is there any sort of data to back this claim? I have a lot of family that grew up and/or lives in WI and they are all the epitome of traditional "meat hunters". Not to mention all the times I've driven through Sconnie during their season and saw way more little bucks hanging off vehicles then anything else.

Last year for example I drove through a large chunk of northern and western WI on their Opening Day and saw so many spikes and fork horns. Way more of those then anything else. I actually remember thinking this very thing as I saw that. "Wow, sure are a lot of big deer around here like they say on FM..... Sure looks like they voluntarily practice APR's like some folks like to claim on FM...."

HABITAT, FOOD and Post-Rut hunting are what will give you the best chances at increased populations of mature animals! Banning cross tagging will do little in the grand scheme.

[BRULEDRIFTER]

Another thing to consider here is, the folks that DO actually go out and "Wack and Stack" bucks will always do it, regardless of the law. I mean, how easy is this going to be to enforce anyway? I know where I hunt a law like this would be nearly impossible to enforce unless you're a total nimrod.

I would much rather see the season get bumped back to accomodate the horn-porn crowd then see another law on the books that is nearly impossible to enforce and that takes away opportunities for legit hunting parties.

[Getanet]

I agree with you Brule on Wisconsin hunters. I have family in Wisconsin and they're no more or less selective than the family in MN I hunt with. That's obviously an extremely small sample size - but at least it's real compared to generalities that Wisconsin hunters are more selective.