Minnesota ties for Second most B & C Bucks produced in 2010!!!!!!!!!

[lakevet]

July 2011 Field & Stream Magazine, on page 18, calls Minnesota the Most Improved State for Producing Boone & Crockett bucks. This is based on bucks entered, not because of the experiment in zone 3.

We have now been labeled by Field and Stream as One of the Hottest States for B&C bucks. Better than Iowa and Illinois.

We tied for second place in 2010 with Ohio for number of B & C bucks by each getting 15 in the record books, beating states such as Iowa and Illinois.

Wisconsin was first place, again, producing 24 typicals and 11 non-typicals. They did this while allowing cross tagging of bucks (legal and ethical gifting of tags) and without APR's.

The 15 Minnesota Boone & Crockett bucks were GROWN WITHOUT extra State regulations banning traditional cross tagging statewide and without requiring counting points/ APR's. They were shot in the first year when part of the state was implementing experimental regs that would REDUCED the chance of harvesting a buck that first year. New regs did not contribute to these bucks getting in the book.

The 2011 summer Blufflands Whitetails Newsletter is where I first read this. The Field & Stream author Scott Bestul said in the BWA newsletter that he was surprised and didn't expect Mn to be improved. Unfortunately, in the same newsletter, they again repeated the old 67% young buck percentage, while QDMA says it has improved to 41% in 2009. Hopefully they will update that number with the good news 2009 number.

Three points to think about:

1) As stated in earlier post, 2011 QDMA report has called Minnesota most improved state in letting young bucks walk with only 41% of buck harvest being 1 1/2 year olds in 2009, DOWN dramatically from 67% in 2007 & 2008. We are below Midwest state average now. QDMA has gone from using us as poster child for what happens when you shoot too many young bucks, to now praising us about our big turnaround.

2) Next we are labeled by Field & Stream magazine as the most improved state for producing Boone & Crockett bucks in 2010, tying for second place nation wide!!!! This is by author Scott Bestul who honestly admits he has heavily ripped on his home state's buck management. He did not see this giant U turn in Big Buck production coming so soon. He infers that he is eating crow now.

3) Summer 2011 Bluffland Whitetails newsletter p. 3 the BWA President states "one thing is very clear, Minnesota has made a giant u-turn in buck quality. " and "I was very surprised to see Minnesota tied for second place at this point in time".

So, why are we deer hunters fighting so much over experimental regulations (that did not contribute to this improvement) that were implemented by one group trying to first out regulate another group, followed by that group retaliating by trying to out legislate the first group, when two national organizations have gone from criticizing us to praising us based on facts??????????

It is like the Hatfields and McCoys who can't remember why it started in the first place. PETA must be busting a gut laughing at us.

We should be CELEBRATING!!!

Minnesota was #1 years ago without these experimental regs. We are tied in 2010 for second most B & C bucks, and that CANNOT be credited to the experiment in zone 3. Now neighboring wisconsin is #1 in 2010 entries while allowing cross tagging of bucks and without APR's.

In my opinion, MINNESOTA HAS CHANGED VOLUNTARILY, because enough hunters are CHOOSING to harvest or not harvest deer differently than 10 years ago. The result is the increase in B & C Bucks, the statewide drop in young bucks in the harvest to 41% , and the NATIONWIDE recognition we are getting! The "get a buck, any buck" mentality created by the statewide buck only/doe permit system of the 1970's is finally fading.

EDUCATE, NOT REGULATE AND LEGISLATE!!!!!!!!!

Education is working, period. Dump the zone 3 experiment when the 3 years is up. Let the legislature and Conservation Officers work on something else.

Ramp up the education. Next is to beat Wisconsin We already beat Iowa and Illinois last year!

Read the article and the newsletter, then chime in!! Spread the word! Looks like we will again have our cake and eat it to. You can have a better chance at a book buck, and I can choose to gift my buck tag to one of the kids, and hopefully some day my grand kids.

Shake hands, bury the hatchets, celebrate success and move on!!!!

lakevet

p.s. Why hasn't our Minnesota Outdoor media picked up on this???????????????

[certified jumbo]

I read the same article. I think it is a cool thing. But two things to think about are........most deer are not registered B&C and we have a large number of overall hunters compared to other states. I think sometimes this can distort the numbers.

[nonteepical]

p.s. Why hasn't our Minnesota Outdoor media picked up on this???????????????

Because it's not as big of a deal as your trying to make it out to be, your trying to fool people in your posts to make minnesota out to be something it's not: the top trophy destination in the world (it could be but it's not) just so you can keep the brown it's down/ whack'em and stack'em style of hunting in your hunting camp.

I know of 5 of those entries are vintage entries, shot by fathers and grandfathers and were entered by their kids and grandchildren. A friend of mine entered his first buck he ever shot, he shot it in 1972.

Here's a little interesting info: the last time a typical B&C buck broke minnesotas top 10 was in 1995 the Barry Peterson buck scoring 195 7/8 ranks #5 minnesota typical. The last nontypical to break into the top 10 was in 1990, the lyndon westerberg buck scoring 245 4/8 ranking #7 in Minnesota's nontypicals.

[LOTWSvirgin]

[psepuncher]

In my opinion, MINNESOTA HAS CHANGED VOLUNTARILY, because enough hunters are CHOOSING to harvest or not harvest deer differently than 10 years ago. The result is the increase in B & C Bucks, the statewide drop in young bucks in the harvest to 41% , and the NATIONWIDE recognition we are getting! The "get a buck, any buck" mentality created by the statewide buck only/doe permit system of the 1970's is finally fading.

EDUCATE, NOT REGULATE AND LEGISLATE!!!!!!!!!

Regardles of which era's horns were scored, the majority nowadays has turned the corner.

Because fact is, we've been at or below population goals for 3 years,

are we going to be picky now...you betcha.

[lakevet]

QDMA and Field & Stream did their research and published their conclusions.They are the ones who are stating that we have improved dramatically in THEIR opinion.

In 2009, QDMA says we dramatically lowered the % of young bucks in our harvest.

The next year we jump in B & C entries according to F & S Scott Bestul, who was interviewed by Blufflands President.

Possible conclusions:

1) Its a dead horse, as stated above, and QDMA and F & S are also beating a dead horse. No way we could have turned a corner. Or even begun to turn a corner in terms of real deer stats. That won't show up until this year or the next as the new regs begin to have impact. And this will only happen where new regs are, not statewide where cross tagging is allowed and no APR's exist.

2) A large enough % of Minnesota hunters have voluntarily chosen to change the way they decide what deer they will harvest, and it is already changing our deer herd harvest statewide. "Critical mass" has been achieved via education. Additional regulations not required.

For the record, I am FOR letting the regulations run the DNR's planned process. However I believe that all info on trends should be widely published and facts should be scrutinized (thank you non typical for your input, would be interesting what Scott Bestul of Field & Stream would say in reply, and why BWA president didn't bring that up in the 2011 summer BWA newsletter). As each year goes by, raw data and facts, in addition to analysis and conclusions (which should be labeled as such) should be widely available. Statewide data, and broken down by zone, are needed to help determine if improvements happened without new regs in the rest of the state.

Another couple years and more harvest data will show if these 2 stats were the first of a new voluntary statewide trend and confirmation of a huge shift in Minnesota hunter mentality away from the "buck, any buck mentality" which I personally am against.

Nontypical, could you keep us posted on number of B & C deer shot in MN in 2011 and 2012? Not just entered. And divide them into deer shot within and outside the new regs area? Also could someone do the same for P & Y bucks? How did Mn do in P & Y bucks for 2010? It would be interesting to see how those stats unfold. What month does QDMA come out with their 2012 report? That should have their wildlife biologists conclusions on the % of young bucks in the harvest for 2010. And watch the DNR numbers for both inside AND outside the new regulations area. If we see similar improvement in whatever stats are chosen to decide if regs are a success both in and outside zone 3, then we all should be happy. It would mean that those who wanted more mature bucks get that and those who want to hunt without added regulations get that.

Not looking to "win " an argument or stick a label on someone, instead looking to get people thinking and looking carefully at info and conclusions, and being willing to question their point of view to see if it is still supported by the available evidence. Myself included

The 8 yr old wants to go practice .22, catch you later!

lakevet

[Bear55]

That is cool but I don't really see 15 big deer out of an entire state as some kind of dramatic change. The % change might be huge but we are still talking about 15 deer.

I know most people when talking about big deer usually combine the P&Y and Boone and Crockett numbers to get a better idea how many big deer a state will produce. I think we might be flying unde the radar a little as far as big deer are concerned but I think we could do much better.

I also try not to worry about how many people do or don't put their deer int he record books, the law of averages should tell us all states will have people that will enter them and people that will not so it's not worth worrying about.

[mrklean]

+1

[Bear55]

[CodyDawg]

15 B&C out of 500,000 hunters...yep, we are saturated with the big'uns. Why, they are behind every tree! You only have to hunt a mere 33,333 years on average to bag one!

[muskiemanAD]

Let's let this 3 year study run its course by the end of it we should have the top B&C producing state in the country, by a lot too! Now that would be cool!

[slimngrizzly]

When I can say I know of a few 160"+ framed bucks around on a regular basis out in MN "farmland" region, then I'll believe something is TRULY changing!

Until then, theres always been deer of this caliber in the north woods and in the SE zones and there always will be. I mean there are some everywhere in the state but not nearly as many in some places as others. It is nice to hear this state is getting better... but seriously...15! A Gun season timed right, or a rise in barometric pressure, or a simple temperature drop or moon phase... all these things could result in shooting a few bigger deer in a single season.

Im ALL about quality deer management but looking at how many harvested bucks NETTED B&C is really NO indicator of the quality of the age structure in any states herd.

[HunterLee]

The only thing they may have boosted those numbers was the last few years of standing corn, and now last year they got if off and hammered them back again.

The only way the farmland zone will get and keep nice bucks is with some strict management and some more years off corn until January.

Like has been stated, the big northwoods and the southeast have had and will have a better chance of getting those types of bucks. They need time plain and simple to get that large of a rack.

We have the genes all over the state, but with 500000 hunters and a good portion of them shooting whatever they want we will never have the age structure to get those types of deer, with any regularity.

[rkhinrichs]

BBD!!

[sticknstring]

Not sure about the B&C entries, but MN has had 2 new state non-typical P&Y records in the past 3 years! (Spanjers in '08 and O'Konek in '09)

Pretty impressive if you ask me.

[PostFrontal]

I don't know if I'd draw any conclusions off of 1 year.

This is making my head hurt again. Think I'll wait until the 3 years is up, and pick it up again when that firestorm hits...

[lakevet]

That is cool but I don't really see 15 big deer out of an entire state as some kind of dramatic change. The % change might be huge but we are still talking about 15 deer.

I know most people when talking about big deer usually combine the P&Y and Boone and Crockett numbers to get a better idea how many big deer a state will produce. I think we might be flying unde the radar a little as far as big deer are concerned but I think we could do much better.

I also try not to worry about how many people do or don't put their deer int he record books, the law of averages should tell us all states will have people that will enter them and people that will not so it's not worth worrying about.

I agree, but much is made about the number of B & C bucks from Mn as a indicator of how good or bad our state is regarding management of the deer herd. And how new regs would improve that stat. Remember that last year 47 states entered LESS B & C bucks than Minnesota. It should not be a major driving factor in how one regulates the deer herd. As mentioned above year of entry do not necessarily coincide with year harvested. Still B & C is used as an indicator by some.

Example: Bluffland Whitetail News April 2009

"Our first and most immediate goal is to get rid of the cross tagging of bucks. This is such a modest goal as to be almost embarrassing. DNR biologists estimate that this would save about 10 percent of the bucks killed each year. That’s all! If that 10 percent were to translate directly into an increased number

of Boone & Crockett bucks registered in this state, Minnesota’s average annual count would go from about ten to just eleven record deer per year. Clearly we are not asking for much here!"

One more B & C deer per year cited as one potential outcome and reason for change. Obviously there are others, but why cite one more B & C buck? Per 500,000 hunters?

Second reason for this posting is that the amount and type of national press coverage of Minnesota deer hunting is cited as a indicator of how well we are managing our deer herd.

example: BWA news Fall 2010 article "Minnesota Deer Hunting: Our National Image"

This article does a survey of Minnesota's coverage in the national hunting press in the fall of 2009 including Field & Stream (source of the info that started this post), Outdoor Life, Sports Afield, North American Whitetail, and Deer & Deer Hunting. There was 1,569 mentions of specific state deer hunting, Minnesota mentioned 37 times and "virtually no articles of the kind that would say 'come hunt in Minnesota'". It goes on to say that this is proof that changes need to be made.

To their credit, BWA news citied the Field & Stream article July 2011 as good news. I appreciate them following the stats that they value and reporting changes.

Thus as one who sees certain sources and types of data being cited to support a viewpoint, when I see the same sources and data changing in the direction that is much desired, I think it is worthwhile to bring that up and have people aware and be looking for any future info.

Lastly in my hunting area where winter, wolves and the "get a buck, any buck" rifle hunters clean out the little bucks, our muzzleloading group shoots mostly does and the bucks we get are the survivors, vast majority older, mature bucks. The last time we shot a "spike" has to be 5 or 6 years ago, I have trouble recalling for sure. So those who want to label my family "brown its down", are accurate, but we harvest VERY few young bucks. And we absolutely do not target them preferentially like the "gotta get a buck, any buck" hunters.

lakevet

[rbs]

Just to help the numbers out I will register mine from 1998 next fall....lol

[Musky Buck]

lol, our state is twice the size of iowa bigger than next door, but it was prime antler growing years coming off major food source winters plus who all entered their deer. Truth is the number of true mature bucks where I hunt is less than half what it was 20 years ago even with more people practicing go/grow or whatever. My trailcam thus far with 6 bucks on it and 0 shootables and we don't take yearlings but don't have the acreage needed to protect them during the rut and it's a revolving door.

[Musky Buck]

ooops. Could care less we were 2nd or whatever, so if this trend continues ok but I don't find a 160 inch deer any less than a 170. Score means 0 to me, the overall look of the rack if it has some uniqueness or whatever that's what I like to see and the story behind it. Got way too many inferior bucks doing the majority of the breeding in my area and 4 of those trailcam bucks are spikes, we never or rarely used to see any spike bucks, the last 5-8 years we are and it's not the little basket 6's that were so common it's runt spikers, that's a bad trend.

[creepworm]

Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't it serve you to cull some of these "inferior" bucks that are doing the breeding?

[HunterLee]

There is no way to tell if a buck is "inferior" until its at least 3 yrs old.

If i had the land I would never cull a buck if its under 4 yr old.

On top of that, one good breeding buck has only so much time to get the deeds done. He will be lucky to get 5 in a season.

So unless you have a high fence or enough land to keep them all on there there i wouldn't ever cull a buck, unless mature and you know what he has been for the prior years.

[slimngrizzly]

I dont think this state is properly managed... but not to open that can of worms. I DO believe that the "new generation" of hunters seem to be a little big more trophy oriented and I have certainly seen more 1 1/2 year old bucks surviving the season in the last 3-5 years. I cant think of any other reason other than hunters are better educated than ever on antler growth and everyone who reads a magazine or watches tv is begining to understand what happens when a deer makes it an extra year or two. People can say what they want, good or bad, about the "horn porn" on t.v. but like it or not it rubs off on people.

I wouldn't say its real good where im at (but Im a complainer) but it is encouraging to me to see things moving in the direction they are because of hunters decisions.

[BobT]

Sorry fellas but personally the fact that we have been blessed with the high percentage of deer licenses being filled over the past decade or more is a testament to the the good deer management we've enjoyed.

Isn’t it a matter of perspective? Right now a rack that exceeds some pre-determined B&C or P&Y measurement is appealing because they are more rare and/or less common. A trophy is only a trophy as long as it is not the norm. If every buck out there carried racks for the record books it might sound appealing today but in a short time it would be old news. Once today’s trophy becomes the norm, the thrill is gone and a new standard to define trophy must be set to keep the thrill alive. You can get those easy enough. Just go to a deer preserve where they guide you to the herd, point out the bucks, and let you pick the one you want. The thrill just isn’t the same unless you’re a lazy cuss that isn’t really interested in hunting but only wants to shoot at something on the hoof.

I remember as a kid just seeing a deer was the rarity and a thrill. We went for entire seasons maybe getting a glimpse of a flag if we were lucky. Getting a deer no matter what it was would have been a trophy. Then in the 80’s things finally began to improve and the definition of a trophy changed right along with it. Fast forward through the 90’s to the present and now nothing less than a 10-pointer spouting antlers with 1-1/2” thick main beams at the base extending outside the ears and 8” or longer tines running over 200 lbs. dress weight is considered decent. As we see more and more deer and as the quality of those deer improves our expectations change right along with it and we are pickier about what constitutes a trophy. Sure, we still enjoy taking the smaller ones as we are meat hunters first and trophy hunters second.

[fr0sty]

I was just ready an old issue of Deer and Deer Hunting (sept 98). There was an article in it with photos of two bucks over the years. One was a spike as a yearling. He was 165" buck at 4.5 years.

The article claims that nutrition is usually the limiting factor in antler growth.

There is no way to tell if a buck is "inferior" until its at least 3 yrs old.

If i had the land I would never cull a buck if its under 4 yr old.

On top of that, one good breeding buck has only so much time to get the deeds done. He will be lucky to get 5 in a season.

So unless you have a high fence or enough land to keep them all on there there i wouldn't ever cull a buck, unless mature and you know what he has been for the prior years.