2011 QDMA report MN has big decline in yearling buck harvest!

[lakevet]

Just read QDMA 2011 deer report on their HSOforum.

p. 6 of report

"Notables included Minnesota's big decline in yearling harvest rate"

"the percent change -39%"

and page 7

table shows Minnesota % of harvest that is yearling bucks dropped from 67% the previous 2 years down to 41%!

MN harvest contains lower % young bucks than Midwest region average(43%)!

MN harvest contains lower % of young bucks than Wisconsin (54%), Michigan(52%), and Ohio(49%)!

Now before you trumpet the success of APR's and cross tagging ban think HARD about the following:

THIS BIG DROP HAPPENED IN 2009 BEFORE APR'S AND CROSS TAGGING BAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This big drop happened with no apr's and cross tagging being legal, as it traditionally has been in Minnesota!

Education is shifting hunter behavior.

Also since this big shift occurred the year BEFORE APR's AND CROSS TAGGING BAN, don't credit new regs/bans with a change they did not create!

Dump the bans, MN is shooting less young bucks without bans that cause a Hatfield/McCoy fight that PETA loves!

Any review of the regs must be done in light of this drop and improvement must be measured from the new 2009 41% yearling buck harvest rate not the old 67% rate in 2007 & 2008.

Way to go Minnesota deer hunters! We are keeping our deer herd numbers in check overall and VOLUNTARILY dropped the % of young bucks in our harvest to below our regions average!

This should be shouted from the rooftops as a triumph for all of us and proof again that you can lower young buck harvest bucks without more nontraditional regs that destroys over a century long family traditions like giving the gift of my tag to someone I love and hunt with!!

By the way I do not belong to QDMA.

Debate on....but STICK TO THE FACTS!!!!!

lakevet

[Spike76]

I've shot at least 75 deer through the years and have shot probably 10 spikes. Every one was a quality deer, and I was greatful to harvest each of them. When it was bucks only, the does guard seemed to be let down. If hunters didn't seem a hazard to young bucks, I would guess they would let their guards down too. Minnesota winters are a pretty good management, and go to the deer classic and see all the big bucks shot each year. In many cases if you pass up the younger deer, the older deer come along. Hit a homerun with the normal ballpark fences, and you will be prouder then doing it with the fences moved in half way to home plate. If you hunt for big deer with good skills, you will have a good chance of getting a big deer.

[Getanet]

Those are interesting stats. Even if that report included 2010 it would be silly to think restrictions in only one zone would make that big of a difference.

Still, to be consistent, I'm skeptical of any of these "Yearling" stats as nobody seems to have a decent explanation of how they get those figures, considering our registration tags don't have a Yearling classification.

I can see APR being a highly divisive issue - not only among hunters on the macro level, but in individual deer camps. In fact, I know this will be a hot button issue in my own deer camp as my father and uncle (and me) are adamantly against any type of state-wide APR and I noticed someone else in my hunting party on a pro-APR petition. I'm going to hope like heck it doesn't get brought up during deer camp this year because if it is there will be a big rift in camp.

[lichen fox]

If you look at the MNDNR harvest reports on their HSOforum I think the numbers, (percentages), they are reffering to are the number of "fawn" bucks registered and then they are classifed as "yearling" bucks in the QDMA report...the only age data that the DNR asks for when registering harvests....Adult Buck -Fawn Buck-Adult Doe-Fawn Doe...

[nonteepical]

They get the info from the state DNR's voluntary participation in the program. I'm skeptical (cautious) of the 41% figure possibly being a false positive, following 2 consecutive years of 67% and minnesota in the 2010 whitetail report got the distinctive honor of the poorest managed whitetail state. The most interesting state in the chart is Missouri that has the numbers of APR zones and non APR statistics.

I'm glad your investgating i hope your taking some of it in it's sound biological management/science, like i've said before traditional deer hunting is changing, I believe for the better. I've also said before, i'm not for a statewide APR but I want the 3 year study to run it's course because some people need proof by doing and seeing if something works compared to reading it, and not experiencing it first hand. If the numbers hold at 41% I would be more than happy with that number of yearlings taken during the season.

[lichen fox]

So, where do you find the information for the MN DNR's "voluntary" participation program...got a "link" you could post??

[Getanet]

That's what I was going to ask. How does the DNR volunteer any information for this program? The only data they get from our registration tags is "adult male" of "male fawn." A spike or a state-record buck is going to be considered an "adult male."

The DNR has a 44-page PDF with nearly every conceivable harvest statistic, yet nowhere is there any data on "Yearlings."

They can't be using the "male fawn" statistics because A) those numbers are much lower than the "Yearling" stats and male fawns are almost always "button bucks" that had no visible antlers and in most cases the shooter didn't know they had shot a "buck."

[PostFrontal]

Would you please provide the numbers from 2000-2008 which I feel is a better representation of "normal" hunting condidtions. I know for a fact in Zone 3, where I hunt, 2009 there was a ton of corn still in the fields, and 2010 was the worse for weather since I can remember plus apr...I know for a fact in Zone 3 those 2 factors for their respective years played a role in hunter success rates.

[lichen fox]

Go the MN DNR HSOforum...hunting & trapping...deer...you'll find all the reports listed there there are some year to year "comparitive" charts and others that are broken down by specific management area...

[goblueM]

one year does not a trend make

[lichen fox]

I looked around on the QDMA site and at the 2011 report...from what I saw, I would say that QDMA derives the MN age information from the "Biocheck" studies...ie: deer that were inspected by DNR biologists at "selected" registration stations throughout the state...It also show's that there was "no data" available for 2007 &'08 and that in 2009 a total of 2% of the DNR's total registered harvest was "biochecked"...so that is quite a small sample from selected area's and would more than likely have a high margin of error...

[hockeybc69]

Goblue nailed it....

[lichen fox]

Yes, he did...Here's the question I asked Lou and the response I got...

From: Bob Halvorson

Sent: Friday, April 22, 2011 10:05 AM

To: Cornicelli, Lou (DNR)

Subject: Deer Age Structure/Harvest reports?

Hey Lou,

Does the MNDNR have any harvest reports that indicate any kind of age structure in Mn harvested deer other than adult buck-fawn buck-adult doe- fawn doe??

Or, do you have any information on studies done to "estimate" the average "age structure" of Minnesota's deer herd that is broke down by percentages of 1 1/2 year olds, 2 1/2 year olds....etc...bucks %, doe's%.....?? I've looked all over the MNDNR HSOforum and can't find any information other than the usual harvest reports and they don't go beyond adult-fawn-buck or doe....

From: Cornicelli, Lou (DNR) (DNR)

To: Bob Halvorson Sent: Fri, Apr 22, 2011 11:32 am

Subject: RE: Deer Age Structure/Harvest reports?

Hi Bob,

We don’t have a specific report examining harvested deer ages. We’ve had research projects going on since 2005 where we’ve collected opening weekend data from major registration stations. However, it’s not summarized in a formal report. Is there something specific you’re looking for?

Lou

[Getanet]

When Lou asks if there is something specific you're looking for, I would have a few specific questions I'm guessing he's smart enough not to definitively answer:

1) Does the MN DNR harvest data support the QDMA's claim that 65% of bucks harvested in MN are yearlings?

2) Does the MN DNR have data to show whether we have a healthy or unhealthy age structure of bucks in MN? If so, is it healthy or unhealthy?

3) Does the MN DNR have data that shows the approximate ratio of does to bucks in MN? If so, what is it?

4) Based on the data the MN DNR does have, does it feel APRs are necessary in MN?

[goblueM]

i'll answer that 4th question for you - APR (and most deer management for that matter) is in itself is a socially-motivated issue

there's nothing biological about it. we SOCIALLY desire bigger bucks, or a higher buck/doe ratio, or more deer, or whatever.

[Getanet]

Sorry GoBlue, I modified my question just as your were answering it. I originally wrote, "Based on the data the MN DNR does have, does it feel APRs are necessary in MN? Or is it primarily a socially-motivated issue?"

I edited it because if they don't have data that supports it being necessary, it's by default a social issue.

I'm not for APR, but if the DNR - not any individual or organization/association says, "hey guys, we have a problem with the health of our deer herd," than I would change my mind.

[lichen fox]

So, here's a little longer response I got from Lou...it doesn't address all the questions you have listed but hopefully it gives more insight...Note that from his response...the data came from the NW & SE area's of the state, as that's the only area's they had these stations.

Hi Bob,

So you know, I don’t like thinking on Fridays J . QDMA may have gotten the check station data from Marrett Grund, our farmland deer research biologist. I hadn’t seen the report or talked to them about harvest rates. Our biological check station data is representative in the area it was collected. The 2% doesn’t really matter. We work large registration stations over opening weekend. Recall that half of our total harvest comes on opening weekend so we’re catching what’s getting killed in that area. What it doesn’t say is what’s going on statewide. In other words, if we don’t work stations in the NE or the SW (which we don’t), I can’t tell you what the average age might be. We do know the percentage of yearlings declined when we went to over-the-counter antlerless permits because we put more harvest pressure on females. Since the majority of people (like 80%) only take 1 deer, when you put pressure on females, it de facto takes pressure off males. Voila’, you save bucks by lowering deer densities and percent yearlings in the harvest goes down. Why? One of the tenants of population ecology regarding exploited species is with maximum hunting opportunity you harvest the population in proportion to its availability. In other words, if 60% of your buck harvest is yearlings, about 60% of the total buck population are yearlings as well. While some people may be selective (e.g., wait for a mature buck), the hunting population is not selective. You just don’t have enough people passing on yearling bucks to move the percentage more than a point or two. You could say that archers could be more selective and may disproportionately take mature bucks. But, they only killed 7,000 bucks total last year so even if they were ALL mature bucks, it wouldn’t matter given we killed 88,000 during the gun season. Under lightly exploited conditions (e.g., Texas-style leases, western deer/elk hunting) this assumption doesn’t hold but it does in areas with public land, over-the-counter licenses, and long seasons (we have all 3).

Make sense?

Lou

[lakevet]

one year does not a trend make

But it can make the first year of a trend.

The problem is that we implemented cross tagging ban and apr's to reduce young buck harvest and will try to evaluate them to see if it had the desired effect on young buck harvest............... but the desired reduction happened DRAMATICALLY BEFORE the regulations are implemented.

It is very hard to justify continuing regs when it is unclear that they were even needed to achieve the desired effects (moderate antlerless harvest increase and secondarily fewer young bucks in harvest). To make a decision to keep controversial regs when they are not clearly causing the desired goals would be wrong.

So you look for the data over several years. In disregard for the concept of limiting the variables to only one when experimenting, in 2010 we have TWO new regs started at the SAME TIME. Now we also have a 3rd variable, as evidence a new trend of a dramatically lower harvest of young bucks may have already started in 2009!

The 2010 harvest stat will have THREE possible influences on harvest in zone 3.

2009 already showed decrease in young bucks according to report signed off on by 3 QDMA biologists. They have more time than any of us to analyze all this. Then there are the impact of not only one, but TWO new regs implemented. How do you untangle and credit what caused what????

The answer is you can't based on just zone 3. If the state overall shows that the trend of fewer young bucks in harvest (such as 2009) then you could conclude that cross tagging ban and apr's are not needed to achieve the SECONDARY goal, as stated by DNR, to reduce young buck harvest. Increasing the antlerless harvest is a separate issue, one that is not a problem up north with our winters and wolves. And one that did not happen under the first year of the new regs in zone 3.

In my opinion it is a mess with no obvious way to give credit where credit is due, unless you are willing to look outside zone 3 and assume that applies equally to zone 3.

Glad I don't have to write the report that will make the recommendation on keeping or canning the new regs.

The silver lining in all this is we may stop fighting and honestly look at the stats and realize we can have our cake and eat it too!

lakevet

p.s. when QDMA labeled us as the state with highest young buck harvest, no one questioned it, now the same people single Minnesota out as a state that made dramatic improvement, we want to discredit their stats. If we question the methodology of 41% young buck number, we also are saying we don't believe the 67% number so often cited as proof of how screwed up our state is. Can't pick and choose!

[lakevet]

This topic got real quiet after my last post. Is everyone agreeing to my line of thinking........or is the fishing that good?

lakevet

[Musky Buck]

All I know that is factual in the 3 counties/properties where I hunt deer is that in the last decade the number of decent bucks per bachelor herd has diminished where I have the ability to scout and now even with trailcams scouting year round for me, that's the truth as we can recall the 70's,80's and 90's as we are all on the same properties today that we were on 40 years ago and talking with my 13 uncles etc. they chime the same tune and what is somewhat baffling is we don't shoot immature bucks so you'd be led to believe more would make it as 2.5 year olds, our properties aren't large enough that the deer spend 24/7 on them. A true field dressed 200 pounder is very very rare for us and I think that is a part of what we miss. It varied but most years with way fewer days afield our group would consistently bag 2-3 in that 200 pound dressed range and most farms etc in the area would have 1 or 2 of those big boys hanging high. The meat poles don't bend like they used to nor do we see many or any true mature bucks, the august bachelor herds will dictate our level of hope for November. My gut tells me old zone 4 was perfect for our farming/hunting area, most of the total harvest happens in the 1st two days of season, after that the deer that used to survive, (I know there was a 4B four day the second wkd)(especially bucks) are thinned down by 7 more gun days,16 by muzzy, and late bow. I see the trend, it aint the trend we're hoping for. Think the folks in our section(s) where we hunt will slow it down a bit on dusting immature bucks, not a chance as what's important to many of them is " we're filled out " but then magically there they are with muzzleloader in hand 2 weeks later ? Hmmm. Bottom line for me is if there's 1 shootable buck around our section for 19 of us to hunt hey I got a 1 in 19 chance and you convince yourself 1 might move in for more optimism which never comes to fruition. I miss 1985 !

[bottom-bouncer]

Lakevet where do you hunt?

[lakevet]

Northeast Minnesota because my relatives settled here 130 years ago and we enjoy the wolves and winters .

But because it is still in Minnesota, there is definite potential for regulations in other parts of the state being expanded statewide. Divide and conquer is an old but effective tactic.

My point in starting this thread is to point out the potential that the average hunter is already getting it and passing alot more on young bucks voluntarily AND are willing to shoot enough does to manage population.......which in my opinion is a perfect world. In fact it getting hunters to shoot does may be harder than getting then to pass on young bucks.

And that the famous high % of young bucks stat that is still being paraded out by those who want these regs.....now maybe showing the opposite is now true. Those who have been pushing education, keep it up. Those who don't believe the stat... go argue with the THREE QDMA biologists who signed their name to the report

Again according to QDMA, STATEWIDE Minnesota's now lower than the average for the Midwest regarding those young bucks in the harvest.

We will see what the next QDMA report says.

Hopefullly it will mean everyone will come to the conclusion these regs are unneeded and we have to find something else to fight.....like PETA & HSUS.

lakevet

[Crappie Rage]

I will chime in. Facts about me. Bowhunter, 44, Land owner in Kansas 4 years, last buck shot in MN 2002(many does).

I agree with the statement on stats. If you believe 67% you have to believe 41%. Not so sure I believe either of them.

What I can draw on is my own experience. In Kansas (December gun season) every other time I see a buck it is at least 2 years old. About once every 4 days of hunting (November) I will see what I think is a mature buck.

I do not have anywhere near that success in MN. I might see a mature buck every 4 years in MN. Until that improves, I will be in favor of changes incluing no cross tagging and APRs and firearm season dates(even a one week delay would make me happy).

My son is 9 and I would have no problem giving him my tag when he hunts. But I think it is better to skip the cross tagging. I think time will change the thinking on this. The law just makes that happen faster.

My other amazement at the complaints on APR's is that you can't shoot every deer you see. When I was 12, you could't shoot 95% of the deer you saw because they didn't have a 3 inch antler(no does, very few permits). Why is it such a crisis to have a deer in the woods you cannot shoot? I went 3 years before shooting a deer. Kids don't have those rules now anyhow, why the crisis for adults?

And finally, it is only 2 more years. If no one likes the law and they get together enough protesters, I am sure it will go back to the way it was.

[Getanet]

I don't think we should be putting any weight behind the stats the QDMA reports regarding MN's deer population. In this very thread Lou says he doesn't know where they get those figures, and after reading the QDMA's report it doesn't give me much confidence in how they obtain that data.

The QDMA are experts in growing big bucks. They are not experts on the MN deer herd.

We can debate the merits of APR and similar tactics all we want, but those stats from the QDMA report are so flimsy they really shouldn't be used to support either side of the argument.

[Musky Buck]

Maybe there wasn't a great buck fawn crop that came through from the winter before, areas vary, but I had the fewest yearling bucks on my t-cam since the day I bought it last season ? They are a doe in a sense until 3" of calcium is poking atop their head. Man is Minnesota a mess at present time not talking just whitetails, seems the issues and problems mount and few ever get resolved. Lots of I Me and My that's how tons of MN's address one another especially in the greedy world of the whitetail.