Opener date

[Jameson]

...is not going to make it easier to shoot a larger buck, in fact to some degree it will make it more diffucult as one would not be able to hunt the larger bucks during the rut when it is the easiest time of the year. Thats when the big boys can be caught making a mistake....

... I am just trying to see if we could make it better for all. yes, even for those who would like to see more of the big boys.

These two statements just do not mesh.

[harvey lee]

What does not make sense to you.

If it's the part about not making it easier to harvest a trophy buck, it would be tougher to some degree as one could not harvest one during the rut when it can be the easiest as the bucks will make mistakes during the daylight hours.

With the hunt out of the rut, one could possibly see more of the big boys if they hunted a bit harder as it could take more hours in the woods to see them.

That will only effect those who want a larger critter and I believe they are willing to put the needed time in to harvest one.

The rest can shoot their does and smaller bucks as the smaller bucks sure seem to be much easier to harvest from my expierence.

[Big Dave2]

it would hurt my gun hunting a lot. by thanksgiving, our land is void of deer. they move on to bigger and better habitat. i believe many hunters would be in the same boat.

I agree. It would only benefit those who have thier own land and the money, time and other resources to plant food plots.

[Big Dave2]

Big Dave

I do not see where what I was proposing would change anything in regards to what you like to harvest. I never said in my proposal that there would be any APR's.

I did propose the opener to change anything you have harvested in the past or the future. I do not see how this would change what you like to harvest.

If it won't effect my harvest at all then why propose it? You are saying that fewer bucks will be shot therefore there will be more large deer for you to shoot. How does that not effect the harvest of others who do not care about the size of the antlers? If it won't change anything then why not leave it alone?

[harvey lee]

B Amish

Yes, some would possibly lose a few deer on thier land and some would gain.

Where we hunt we also would lose some of the deer we have located on our property.

The only answer I have for that would be that there is some give and take with anything and any change would not be perfect for all.

I know that I would probably need to put a better food plot out to maintain some more of those deer on our property. Yes, I also realize that some could not do that.

[Big Dave2]

What does not make sense to you.

For me it's the part where you say you want these changes so it will be easier to shoot a large antlered buck but then you say it will be harder to shoot bucks.

[harvey lee]

If it won't effect my harvest at all then why propose it? You are saying that fewer bucks will be shot therefore there will be more large deer for you to shoot. How does that not effect the harvest of others who do not care about the size of the antlers? If it won't change anything then why not leave it alone?

I am saying fewer larger bucks will more than likely not be harvested due to no rut during the opener. Not fewer bucks totally. Not fewer basket and smaller 6or 8 pointers.

If you are a big trophy buck hunter, it will effect your harvest duirng the opener but from your posts, I do not believe you are a trophy hunter.

There will be more larger bucks hopefully and all will enjoy that change, not just me. I am not the only one hunting.

It will not effect the harvest for does or smaller bucks or at least at a minimum. They are still in the woods for you to shoot.

Does that clear up what I am saying for you?

Big Dave, let me rephrase this again for you.

It will be harder to harvest a larger buck due to the fact one cannot shoot a trophy or likely not with no hunting during the rut. That should be a given.

Now, if we can grow a few larger bucks and the trophy herd could possibly grow, then we would have more of the high quality bucks to hunt. We would have to hunt a bit harder and smarter to harvest one but with more high quality racked deer, it could possibly be easier. That is a guess of course as I have no fact to prove that. Onlt time would tell.

So, if you do not target trophy bucks, it should not have any effect on your hunt.

[B. Amish]

Yes, some would possibly lose a few deer on thier land and some would gain.

we wouldn't possibly lose deer, we do lose deer. and it wouldn't be a few, its all of them. our land just doesn't support them through the winter. food plots wouldn't change that one bit. maybe 100 acres of pine trees would keep them around, but food plots wouldn't matter a lick.

i've muzzle loaded for 5 or 6 years and i've never seen a deer while doing it. muzzle loading opens three weeks after gun season. the same time you want to move the gun opener to.

[harvey lee]

I guess that if I hunted on my land for 5-6 years and did not see a deer, I would go elsewhere to try and get a deer. Unless that does not matter to you.

If everyone in your area loses thier deer herd, where do they all go to to winter? Can't be all private land if they all lose thier deer. I guess I would go to the area where the deer travel to which must be public property. Must be a large herd of deer there for all to enjoy on the public property during ML season.

[harvey lee]

Big Dave

It would only benefit those who have thier own land and the money, time and other resources to plant food plots.

That statement is almost a laughable.

It would benefit all. Not just the people who own land. Deer live on public property also I thought, not just private property.

Maybe the deer all know who have land. Not all land by any means has food plots on it.

I guess those deer are way mor intellegent than I give them credit for when they know what the difference is between private and public property.

I have public property by out area and it is good for deer hunting and they also winter there. Sure some will move but not all to private property.

What next, all the biggest bucks in the state of North Dakota will move to our land as we want them?

I am fine with you not agreeing with this proposal. As in the past and it will always be, not everyone will agree as we all have different ideas on how to possibly improve the deer hunting or for that matter any outdoor activity. Nothing wrong with trying to make things better.

[surewood]

About the meat hunting. The part I think is [PoorWordUsage]. Is that's why people get up early to go deer hunting along with many other efforts. As I explained it's about friends, family, memories, the thrill, enjoyment of the hunt. Meat and antlers are a bonus. If I don't put venison on the table or a deerw on the wall does that make it unsuccessful? I think I understand why we hunt just fine. What I'm saying is meat is great, but it's just a smaller part of a big picture john. I hope that helps explain my position.

[B. Amish]

I guess that if I hunted on my land for 5-6 years and did not see a deer, I would go elsewhere to try and get a deer. Unless that does not matter to you.

If everyone in your area loses thier deer herd, where do they all go to to winter? Can';t be all private land if they all lose thier deer. I guess I would go to the area where the deer travel to which must be public property. Must be amny deer there for all to enjoy.

huh? why must it be public property where the deer are going? it's not, it's private. i have very very little public land where i hunt.

deer move to wintering grounds when winter sets in. they've been doing this for eons. our land is not a wintering area. around me, their wintering areas are just a few miles away, but once they leave, they're gone until the end of march.

[harvey lee]

One of your posts stated the deer leave your private land and all the private land in your area. I should have quoted that as I see now that post was edited.

That is why I made thr response I did. I loked back and that part of your post is now changed.

Not trying to call you a liar but things seem to have changed a bit.

Then maybe I misread your post. if I did, I am sorry for the mistake.

[B. Amish]

what are you smoking? i haven't edited anything.

[harvey lee]

Candy cigs, like always.

[Getanet]

Harvey, I have to say I’m having a hard time following your logic when it comes to the net benefit. On the one hand you’re proposing moving the Opener out of the rut to theoretically increase the number of big bucks. On the other hand you’re saying there will be more big bucks, they'll just be be harder to see because they’re not in the rut.

Either way don't you wind up with less opportunity for big bucks? Seems like an awful lot of work just to give people a different reason to complain about the same problem.

[ClownColor]

Alot of reading so I skipped a few pages...

Here's my take:

1) Some stated that moving the season back gives a chance for bucks to breed giving us more deer the following season...Though there may be some legitity to this, probably the same amount of does will be shot. A dead pregnant doe reproduces the same amount as a non-pregnant dead doe! And depeding on the buck:doe ratio will dictate the breeding numbers but most does get there chance

2) A late season will probably increase the amount of 2-3 year old bucks ONLY, thus potentialy increasing the number of 5 year bucks down the road. Mature bucks "can" fall victim to the rut by usually they are of the wiser.

3)I feel, IMO-the only way to keep us all happy is to basically increase the total amount of deer thus giving us more mature bucks by default. None of this intesive harvest or bonus tags (or limit it to one). Also-stop state wide season, pick a zone! This is some what new so no traditions will be lost!

4)Iowas big deer usually come from private land on large tracks. Talk to local farmers around here and you can usually see some very nice bucks on the walls...then take way alot of hunters and you'd see the same amount of trophys, imo. We can't compare with Iowa on ANY aspect...apples and oranges

5) we could compare with WI. This is why I feel that if we increase our deer heard, we can increase our deer quality. But then we are fighting with other variables like CWD, Motor vehicle accidents, and urban development. The DNR wants to keep the heard at a certain number thus bag limits are set. so....back to the begining.

[Musky Buck]

I'd hate to see bucks being tagged as does in 1 of my 4 areas, they shed early and I've seen a few pictures and heard of a few shed bucks getting muzzleloaded the way it is now and a few others being drug out and the rack falls off. At first I said whatever, the bucks in my main area shed mid-march predominately, these folk proved me wrong about my 4th area. I'm just sorry our weather isn't what it used to be that first week of November, we're way milder than we once were, I often laugh at people loading up the propane for rifle season, why do you need it ? I could see by Muzzy season but for rifle? I don't think with bow/480,000 gun and 60K muzzy hunters how pushing it back would do much good, it may do more harm having snow to hunt them in every season, the tall grass of this year saved a lot of deer. The standing crops of a couple years ago saved a lot of quality deer. I think our season dates are fine, we as a collective unit can make changes in how many we take or not take, our doe population is being targeted more heavily it seems than they used to be, many extra doe's in the muzzy season go down like some of my relatives, they had never got a muzzy deer before and many had plenty in the rifle hunt, but they want live action with their muzzleloader not that muzzy takes out many deer, usually between 4 and 6% of the total harvest. I bet a few DNR folk/Co's wish or think maybe zone 4 should've been left as was. The fairly open farmland areas are hunting different now then they did during the old split season I think anyway. Hey Happy Thanksgiving guys ! Good Luck Muzzleloading and be safe and shoot straight, remember this your muzzy trigger may not be the same as your rifle/slug gun trigger so get a feel for it before you load it as to how much pull or any differences it may have so it doesn't cost you like it almost cost me last year.

[john skarie]

Surewood;

Yah I see what you are saying. It isn't about just the meat or the horns. I agree with that wholeheartedly.

I do however think that meat is the tradition of hunting in it's essence.

I don't think we do ourselves any favors as a culture by shifting that priority to hunting for bragging rights.

JS

[Big Dave2]

What I'm saying is meat isAntlers are great, but it's just a smaller part of a big picture john. I hope that helps explain my position.

I get YOUR position, I hope you understand mine.

[Black_Bay]

What would it hurt if we moved the opener date back a few weeks to get out of the main rut for the rifle-shotgun opener?

[Musky Buck]

The value of my land would skyrocket, I'm ready to sell. Basically if you have decent muzzy land a later rifle season would mean good things for you and bad for many others, actually selfishly Harvey I'm all for it, half the people in my area would have to take up bow hunting because there rifle season would be a joke, as there land empties out my land would become insane assuming there's any snow on the ground. Not saying the deer would cooperate, but I'd have the cats meow and umpteen jealous hunters wishing they could go in there. I could harbor them, provide a safe haven as I only target 3.5 year old bucks, without the rut they'd stay home so to speak. Roughly 15 deer use 1 of my swamps come opening day of rifle the way it is, by the end of December it's not uncommon to have nearly 100 + on it or cruising through it daily or should I say nightly. I could create one heck of a deer factory guaranteeing all small bucks are safe as ever.

[SandPoint]

I know this topic on how to manage our deer herd is like politics every one will never agree. But I did have a thought on another possible negative on pushing the season back. It was not that long ago that areas of the state were shut down for muzzle load hunting to protect wintering deer.

This whole system of shooting alot doe's and being able to pass on a smaller buck because you have a doe in the freezer could end very quickly with a few hard winters and then we could be back to buck only in northern MN.

[swamptiger]

Quote:

This whole system of shooting alot doe's and being able to pass on a smaller buck because you have a doe in the freezer could end very quickly with a few hard winters and then we could be back to buck only in northern MN.

In the area I hunt, the numbers are already low. One hard winter would wipe out the deer herd.

[DaveT]

"Currently, the deer herd is estimated to be about 200,000 after the hunting season, and harvests have approached 100,000 in recent years."

I just copied that off of Iowa's DNR page. I'll do the math for you, 200,000 plus 100,000 equals 300,000 deer. A harvest of 100,000 equals 33 percent of the herd.

In MN, our DNR tells us we have 1 million deer and we harvest 250,000 a year, 25 percent.

Somebody, anybody, explain to me how Iowa can harvest a higher percentage of their herd and still keep the meat hunters AND the trophy hunters happy.

Either they have this management thing figured out or somebody from the government is lying to me...