Deer Idea

[picksbigwagon]

Lakevet, three or four years ago, Iowa started registering by phone and internet, prior to that there was no registration stations, you just mailed in a card.......

[HunterLee]

The first come first serve is only after the main drawings with any extra doe tags they want to issue. Not a go buy what you want sort of deal

[mnbuckhunter]

I guess I must not be understanding your x,y tags sold idea.

So if the DNR wants 600 bucks shot and 1500 does, thats the number of tags sold.

What is the success rate for deer hunters? Just because 600 buck tags are sold doesn't mean 600 bucks are going to be shot.

[hockeybc69]

Simple. Its roughly 30% success rate, so you need to sell roughly 2000 licenses to achieve a rough 600 deer removed.

[mnbuckhunter]

Simple. Its roughly 30% success rate, so you need to sell roughly 2000 licenses to achieve a rough 600 deer removed.

Isn't that basically what they do now? And then sell additional bonus tags in areas that need additional deer removed?

[InTheNorthwoods]

I guess I must not be understanding your x,y tags sold idea.

HunterLee: "So if the DNR wants 600 bucks shot and 1500 does, thats the number of tags sold."

What is the success rate for deer hunters? Just because 600 buck tags are sold doesn't mean 600 bucks are going to be shot.

I get what you are saying about success rates, but his theory is sound. Tags need to be issued at a sustainable harvest rate. I.e. if we have a herd of 1,000 deer made up of equal parts bucks and does (500 bucks/500 does), and we want to bring the number down to 500 deer (250 bucks/250 does), you can only issue a certain number of tags - you can't let 5,000 people buy tags to kill those 500 deer you want killed. But at the same time, you can't simply issue 500 tags to kill 500 deer because success rates are not %100. Thus, harvest success rates would need to be taken into consideration. But that is simple enough with the information gathering that is already done with registration of deer. So, if harvest success is %50, we would issue 1,000 tags (500 buck/500 doe).

Simply put IMO, the DNR has mismanaged the deer herd by merely identifying that we have too many deer in an area and concluding there should be a 5 deer limit in that area. Then allowing anyone to buy 5 tags and go fill them. This does absolutely nothing to acheive the goal of a sustainable herd as there is no control on the number of deer that can or will be harvested. People jump from one area of the state to the next to whack and stack deer with bonus tags and the DNR simply cannot control or know how many deer are being harvested in that area and thus have no control over the herd size for the next year.

Looking from the outside in, and going simply off of the information gleaned from the licensing system and public information, the only conclusion I can draw is that the DNR doesn't know what their end goal is (i.e. they don't know where they want the herd numbers, they are simply managing with a year-to-year shotgun approach that has no end goal identified). This can lead to wild swings in the deer herd size like we've seen, and this upsets many of us.

[InTheNorthwoods]

hockeybc69 "Simple. Its roughly 30% success rate, so you need to sell roughly 2000 licenses to achieve a rough 600 deer removed."

Isn't that basically what they do now? And then sell additional bonus tags in areas that need additional deer removed?

No. The DNR allows an infinite number of tags to be purchased for any given area. There is no limit on the number of tags sold. For example, in hockeybc69's example of wanting 600 deer to be shot, the current system now allows 10,000 tags to be sold to shoot those 600 deer. If we had that same 30% success rate, that would equate to 3,000 deer shot, or 2,400 more than the management goal.

Point is, I don't think the DNR has a management goal ahead of time. It seems like their management style is solely reactionary.

[mnbuckhunter]

Simply put IMO, the DNR has mismanaged the deer herd by merely identifying that we have too many deer in an area and concluding there should be a 5 deer limit in that area. Then allowing anyone to buy 5 tags and go fill them. This does absolutely nothing to acheive the goal of a sustainable herd as there is no control on the number of deer that can or will be harvested.

[Heartman]

I shot three trophies this fall - an adult doe in MN, and two yearlings(a busk and doe) in WI. Couldn't be more satisfied with deer management policies in either state.

[bigbucks]

In the example if they sell 10,000 tags in an area that only has a 1,000 deer, do you really think they're going to have a 30% success rate? I'm sure they won't even have a 10% success rate, which would be the highest possible, I'd bet on no more than 5%. If there are really that few deer there, the license sales for that area will go way down the next year. People need to give the DNR a little more credit. Are they perfect? NO. Can they manage the regulations to be perfect for everybody's 40 acre farm? NO Do they overall do a pretty good job? In my opinion YES.

[creepworm]

The success rate would not stay at 30%. It's called the law of diminishing return. Less deer equals a lower success rate. Therefore, it is impossible to hit the management goal right on the head. Limiting tags would do nothing but raise deer populations and force the DNR to go back to intensive harvest again and then all you guys that wanted limited tags to begin complaining about the way the DNR managed the deer herd.

[Pinusbanksiana]

Remember that the license revenue for deer is a huge cash cow for the state of MN. Very little money invested and a huge return. The DNR will do what it needs to maximize this revenue source. Don't think for a minute that they were not looking at the money back when they were selling all those extra tags a few years ago.

[hockeybc69]

+1 on the last 3 posts.

[Black_Bay]

MOVE THE HUNT BACK, YES BACK, TO AFTER THE RUT WHERE IT ORIGINALLY WAS IN MINNESOTA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

lakevet

I've been hunting in Minnesota for 31 years, zone 1, and we've never had a season start the 3rd weekend and continue over Thanksgiving. When did it start that late? Why did it change?

Thank goodness it's not like that now because I'd be trying to dig through 16 inches of snow to get home before the next winter storm hits tomorrow.

I love big bucks as much or more than the next guy and practice QDM as much as possible but 90% of the ideas put forth won't work, at least at a noticable level. If you want BIG bucks it would take draconian regs to bring Minnesota back to the "old days".

[nonteepical]

the current season dates started after they closed deer season about 1971 or so, due to high mortality to harsh winters. the first few seasons were bucks only, and they chose the hunting dates to coincide with the peak of the rut so hunters could get their buck, the deer population recovered and the season dates never switched back.

[HunterLee]

Thats exactly what i would like to get away from. We don't want 10,000 people hunting an area that only has 1000 deer.

We only want to kill the amount of deer that we need to. So if an area has to many then we issue a few more doe tags to knock them back, to few then you tighten up the tags.

Yes they do enter where you harvest your deer, but if you tell them the wrong area they don't know. Plus its to late to manage deer if they are already dead.

In the example if they sell 10,000 tags in an area that only has a 1,000 deer, do you really think they're going to have a 30% success rate? I'm sure they won't even have a 10% success rate, which would be the highest possible, I'd bet on no more than 5%. If there are really that few deer there, the license sales for that area will go way down the next year. People need to give the DNR a little more credit. Are they perfect? NO. Can they manage the regulations to be perfect for everybody's 40 acre farm? NO Do they overall do a pretty good job? In my opinion YES.

Why should the hunter have to keep changing areas and hope there are deer when the dnr could flat out say there is or isn't any in that area???

This plan would require the DNR to look around and figure out how many deer are out there before the season, not just see how many got killed after the season.

[creepworm]

That idea would be perfect, if every person owned hunting land in every zone. Breaking up hunting groups because only a few in the group get a license is a ridiculous idea.

[MrCrappie]

For most hunters in MN it boils down to, venison or no venison? The DNR is trying to manage to that so I agree with their approach.

[lakevet]

For most hunters in MN it boils down to, venison or no venison? The DNR is trying to manage to that so I agree with their approach.

The DNR also stated that their #1 priority is managing the deer population to prevent too high a population and the accompanying problems. For much of the non-hunting public, the role of hunters harvesting deer to prevent overpopulation and hunters eating what they harvest is something they agree with and the general public will resist the anti-hunting crowd on that basis.

lakevet

[lakevet]

Lakevet, three or four years ago, Iowa started registering by phone and internet, prior to that there was no registration stations, you just mailed in a card.......

Iowa 2010 deer regs state that 11% of hunters they checked on did not register their deer. They also list all kinds of fines etc to encourage compliance. They state that they need better info via more registration compliance so they can do a better job of managing. In all honesty I have not seen stats on how many MN hunters don't register under the various tag/registration systems and even if that is tracked in MN.

lakevet

[pulleye16]

And whom ever would like to get rid of party hunting needs to either A) Find a party to hunt with, or find a NEW party to hunt with. We have so much fun hunting together we would all start hunting WI just to continue are our past-time if they took it away.

How many father/son, mother/daughter uncles, cousins, and everyone else would have there hunting pleasures ruined just for some SLIM chance there'd be some larger bucks for some hunters. There's no way my old man could hunt by himself. And if I got a deer on opener and had to sit in the shack for 2,3,5,10 days waiting for him to get a deer???? Oh right, I could sit out there "grouse hunting" I'm sure! The DNR would really fall for that!

Party hunting allows for the party to stay together until the end! Alot of parties that I know all shoot their own deer but tell each other, "hey-if a monster buck comes by, take it." Some would just rather let there son or daughter fill their tag to keep them out hunting and enjoy the outdoors. Some just want the venison know matter who takes it. And if one hunter takes two nice bucks...who's to say that one hunter who didn't get one wouldn't have...or maybe its late in the season so they were forced to shoot a young buck?

Oh-you say party hunters often take there mother or daughters or friends deer that don't even make it out in the woods? Thats like saying guns kill people...maybe you should get on that waggon and boycot firearms just cause someone got shot with a gun we should take them all away? Thats pretty much their argument right????? But we know better as hunter and maybe you should come to your senses about not all party hunters do illegal activities!

Get a clue...it's not all about YOU!

[lakevet]

Party hunting ban for bucks only will reduce buck take by about 7% according to the MN DNR. With Aprs closer to 85% of younger bucks will be "saved". Often party hunting is put first on the list of things to ban as a lightening rod whipping boy, even though it it well proven that banning party hunting reduces harvest of deer minimally (less than 10%). Those that are against legal party hunters (as apposed to poachers who violate existing laws, drop a dime on them instead of complaining about them and letting them go) generally do so for "feel good" reasons instead of management by science. If you disagree, post references of peer reviewed studies that prove me wrong.

Wisconsin and Iowa both allow party hunting for bucks including trophy bucks and have for years. I have only heard silence when this point is brought up because the fact is that party hunting doesn't interfere with the production of big bucks. Wisconsin and Iowa are proof of that year after year after year after year.

lakevet

Any comments/citations of references or just more silence. And if silence what good does it do to ban one style of hunting on the basis of personal preference when the stated reason for the ban (more big bucks) is contradicted by facts and neighboring states records? Not to mention Minnesota's big buck production records from back when we had party hunting and a post peak of the rut hunt. I am all ears for examples of situations documented that party hunting ban has resulted in any significant increase in big bucks. When we back out the emotion and manage by science/ statistics, often hunters disagreements are reduced because you look at the facts and make your own decision based on that. For one hunter to tell another that I want to ban your style of hunting because I just don't like it and the stats don't back it up, it makes for a lot of unnecessary friction.

thanks,

lakevet

[lakevet]

to me party hunting is not wrong but the abuse of it witch the members of the party buy tags for the wife that never sets foot in the woods or deer camp ..thats wrong.

I appreciate that you think party hunting is not wrong. In the example you give, they are NOT members of the same party as defined in the rule book. That is clearly stated in the regs book. They are breaking the law by using someone else's tag illegally. I remember a bowhunter in our area would use his wife's archery tag. That came to an end when someone called a CO on him and the CO asked the wife, who had filled her archery tag the previous 5 years in a row, to do a little target practice in the backyard with her bow. She couldn't even draw it back. I don't lump all archers in with that guy. Please don't describe people like that as party hunters. That group is not party hunters but in both instances they are people illegally using someone else's tag. These law breakers will continue to break the law even with a party hunting ban added to the rules. The only significant effect a party hunting ban has is to take away from legal party hunters the tradition they have of party hunting together as a group (often family) style of hunting.

lakevet

[Gordie]

quote from elwood: to me party hunting is not wrong but the abuse of it witch the members of the party buy tags for the wife that never sets foot in the woods or deer camp ..thats wrong.

I appreciate that you think party hunting is not wrong. In the example you give, they are NOT members of the same party as defined in the rule book. That is clearly stated in the regs book. They are breaking the law by using someone else's tag illegally. I remember a bowhunter in our area would use his wife's archery tag. That came to an end when someone called a CO on him and the CO asked the wife, who had filled her archery tag the previous 5 years in a row, to do a little target practice in the backyard with her bow. She couldn't even draw it back. I don't lump all archers in with that guy. Please don't describe people like that as party hunters. That group is not party hunters but in both instances they are people illegally using someone else's tag. These law breakers will continue to break the law even with a party hunting ban added to the rules. The only significant effect a party hunting ban has is to take away from legal party hunters the tradition they have of party hunting together as a group (often family) style of hunting.

lakevet

lakevat I share your passion for hunting as well with family or party hunting and I wasnt saying that those people were party hunting but its those people that say THEY are party hunting. I know that its against the laws if they do thast as Ia neighbor of mine had found that out several years ago as well much like the wife that couldnt draw the bow the woman couldnt load the shell in the gun.

I have heard a ton of deffinitions of party hunting and the only one I belive or follow is the one in the regulation booklet.

You can ban party hunting and it wont stop the people that already break the law but it will keep the people that are honest... honest

You will never be able to stop all the people that poach as well they do it with the laws that are in effect now and will do it if the laws change reguardless and that is the saddest fact of all because you cant control what the poacher takes out of the woods we can try but we all have to aid in theis effort.

[Juneau4]

Never knew you had to be able to draw a bow back or have to be able to load a firearm to buy a deer license and use it. All you have to do is be in the field and be helping in the taking of a deer and your license can be used. You don't even have to have a weapon with you.