APR, QDM, Trophy Hunters, etc....

[nonteepical]

The good old days of hunting are now (i call it mediocre) history proves that land ownership acres shrinks over time. The farmer whose kids dont want to take over the farm, sells his 240 acres and divides it into 3- 80 acre parcels for sale, easier to sell with land prices always going up. The 120 acre family hunting land gets divided into 2-60 acre parcels because the kids grew up, and moved out of state and dads intentions of aways having hunting land changes, only one son/daughter hunts and he just as well sell 60 acres.

These two senarios are happening, land ownership acres is getting smaller, land access is going to get tougher, wich puts more people hunting public land, more people on public land equals less acres per hunter to hunt,if your worried about the next guy shooting that little buck today it's only going to get worse in the future. People say back in the 70's we only shot bucks, yeah but your party of 6 was hunting 300 acres and there was more land for that buck to sneek by and survive, now that party of 6 is hunting 100 acres and the young buck dosen't have a chance.

Hunting manipulates the herd. Deer biologists need to try to keep the deer herd as close to natural as possible, wich would be an even distribution of ages and a even buck/doe ratio as possible.

Lets pretend Minnesota has what would be considered a great doe to buck ratio of 2 does to 1 buck (not antlerless to buck. doe to buck) and has a population of a million deer. That would be 666,000 does and 333,000 bucks in the population.

According to DNR statistics 2010 we harvested 98,834 bucks and 108,479 antlerless deer, of wich in three potentially is a button buck. 108,479 antlerless minus 33% (1/3) potential button bucks= 35,798 button bucks and leaves 72,681 actual does harvested and 98,834 + 35,798 = 134,632 bucks harvested in 2010.

333,000 bucks minus 134,632 harvested bucks = 189,368 that survive, or a 40.5% killing off of the buck population annually. You wonder why people are saying we have very few older age class of bucks, at those harvest rates, very few bucks get a chance to get old.

Everyone (alot people anyways) on here preaches they are full of all these hunting ethics but wheres the ethics in trying to have as natural of a deer herd as nature intended? Heres an ethics quote i always read: "we owe it to the animal!". Having an older age class of bucks won't ruin anyones deer hunting it will make it better for all.

http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/recreation/hunting/deer/2010-harvestreport.pdf

[TRZ II]

If i could choose i would shoot a doe over a small buck every frickn time! But I hunt the northern forest and some years I may only get one shot and it is a small buck. I really wish I could be selective but I like venison too. I love shooting big bucks and have 2 wallhangers, but i also want meat. I'm really not sure there is any solution that will please every hunter or even a majority.......My most enjoyable years hunting I shot a doe opening day and then was very selective waiting for a big mature buck.

[InTheNorthwoods]

The good old days of hunting are now (i call it mediocre) history proves that land ownership acres shrinks over time. The farmer whose kids dont want to take over the farm, sells his 240 acres and divides it into 3- 80 acre parcels for sale, easier to sell with land prices always going up. The 120 acre family hunting land gets divided into 2-60 acre parcels because the kids grew up, and moved out of state and dads intentions of aways having hunting land changes, only one son/daughter hunts and he just as well sell 60 acres.

These two senarios are happening, land ownership acres is getting smaller, land access is going to get tougher, wich puts more people hunting public land more people on public land equals less acres per hunter,if your worried about the next guy shooting that little buck it's only going to get worse. People say back in the 70's we only shot bucks, yeah but your party of 6 was hunting 300 acres and there was more land for that buck to sneek by and survive, now that party of 6 is hunting 100 acres and the young buck dosen't have a chance.

Your theory is interesting, but it neglects to address a critical issue. The fact that hunter participation numbers are declining while the actual land mass is not. Sure, habitat acreage may be on the decline due to land development, but the whitetail deer has been shown to be extremely adaptable to said development. Since actual land mass has stayed the same, but hunter numbers have declined, doesn't that negate (at least in part) your assertion that land is being overcrowded due to subdivision of larger tracts of land and that, therefore, deer are not being given a chance to grow mature?

[ERdeerhunter]

Minnesota is no longer the mecca, agreed, because it was is maybe some as to why it isn't. People bought up all the old dairy farms that went under, became hunting ground. Pressure and in my estimation zone 4 going to zone 2, that's pressure related as well. I asked my dad 2 days ago, stand here in his kitchen, 10 years ago how many stands could you see out the window(s), he said 1 ours, I said look from right here, you could see 9 box stands that never existed only a decade ago, we're overpressuring a lower numbered herd and thinning it down more as people are shooting the 1st thing they see realizing they may not see another. The does have really been hit hard so lower numbers can be expected. If you have quality land and enough of it you have very good deer hunting in MN as any decent buck on marginal land will find yours. 100,000 bow hunters, 60,000 muzzy hunters, 480,000 rifle/gun hunters and stands on every 5 acres or every field,small tracts of land with lots of bodies in and around it, it all adds up. I can see why my dad quit deer hunting, it's a joke compared to 20 years ago and it aint going to get better as the way it is now, it can't.

My dad, my brothers and I have about a dozen stands on our 120 acres for the 4 of us for different weather/wind conditions. People build more stands these days, it doesn't mean there are more hunters. Take a look at the DNR HSOforum and license sales have changed little in the past 20 years.

[Musky Buck]

I hear that, just think if many of us shot whatever, many of you would really be falling on hard times, I hunt a 30, an 80, a 120, and a 320 acre places, haven't shot a doe since 1986 yet I don't have many does on any of these parcels so they are getting gunned down by the 14 people that have lined my fences and are technically hunting the same land I hunt, they know where the deer come from. Oldendays most of us love to eat venison, certainly, but what to do when your area gets overharvested and those same stands will be packed with blaze orange again next year with unlimited tags and the year after that and they all feel they should be owed a deer like anyone else but we now have more hunters in our sections than deer so who gets which one. I think all these qdm's,apr's, etc are people trying to figure out how to improve statewide deer hunting in a diverse state, not sure what to do with so many bodies and opportunity. What a difference it is to when I started in 1983. 3 days bucks only the first weekend or 2 days lottery the second weekend, 1 or the other, not both. Now it's 9 straight with unlimited tags in a sense, strange.

[B. Amish]

According to DNR statistics 2010 we harvested 98,834 bucks and 108,479 antlerless deer, of wich in three potentially is a button buck. 108,479 antlerless minus 33% (1/3) potential button bucks= 35,798 button bucks and leaves 72,681 actual does harvested and 98,834 + 35,798 = 134,632 bucks harvested in 2010.

333,000 bucks minus 134,632 bucks = 189,368 that survive, or a 40.5% killing off of the buck population annually. You wonder why people are saying we have very few older age class of bucks, at those harvest rates, very few bucks get a chance to get old. Everyone on here preaches they are full of all these hunting ethics but wheres the ethics in trying to have as natural of a deer herd as nature intended.

http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/recreation/hunting/deer/2010-harvestreport.pdf

TOTAL

98,834 adult bucks

71,010 adult does

20,742 male fawn

16,727 female fawn

207,313 total deer harvested in 2010

from the same source you quoted. let's use the real numbers and not hypothesize, okay?

[honker23]

As we can tell after 150 some odd posts, we the people will NEVER all agree on what hunting is and should be. Changing culture (beliefs) is very difficult. Look at mille lacs and the slot. How many people let 21 inch walleyes go up there 15 yrs ago? Now a rule has left no doubt, you have to throw it back. Most would agree we have a world class fishery, but you can't keep as many as you did before. As human pressure goes up and habitat changes, we need to change laws to protect the resources. Deer are no different. I think state wide APRs would be fine. Why should low population areas have less restrictions on deer harvested, seems backwards. Passing on a fork or basket six may seem crazy for those that have never seen a buck, but 2 yrs down the road when they shoot an 8 or 10 point, they will look back and say that was great.

The meat hunters say they hunt for venison, if a 1.5 yr old doe and a 5.5 yr old 180 inch buck came out side by side, which one would get shot? Shooting a nice buck has been the lure of deer hunting for everyone, who dreams of shooting a nice spike buck. Increased mature buck numbers would do nothing but good for MN deer hunting. To see this, we will need laws in place, because we will never agree.

[nonteepical]

my hypothetical numbers aren't that far off from your numbers. how many guys lied they shot a button buck when asked, or even knew it was a button buck, i've seen people post pictures on here that they shot a nice doe and the picture is clearly a button buck.

[eyedawg]

+1 honker

[Getanet]

I still scratch my head about the comparison of deer hunting to fishing. If you want to make a true analogy, you wouldn't be able to shoot anything over an 8pt buck. Anything bigger than that gets to keep walking. Then we'd have all the mature deer bucks we needed - you know for the balance and health of the herd and all - and everyone would be happy.

[Getanet]

my hypothetical numbers aren't that far off from your numbers. how many guys lied they shot a button buck when asked, or even knew it was a button buck, i've seen people post pictures on here that they shot a nice doe and the picture is clearly a button buck.

What are you defining as a button buck? I've always referred to a button buck as buck with no visible horns - and the hunter didn't know it was a male until they went to recover their deer.

I highly doubt too many can't tell the difference between a buck and doe. If they can't see from the top of their head there's some pretty visible evidence when you flip the deer over to field dress it.

[kern]

And to take inthenorthwoods' comment a step farther, there are less hunters on more private land due to the "trophy craze". People don't want anybody on there land, if they hunt because if you shoot the big buck, they can't! Not at all pointing fingers to anyone in here because i personally don't know anyone, so please don't take it that way but in my honest opinion more and more hunters are become selfish people that only want what is best for them.

[kern]

I still scratch my head about the comparison of deer hunting to fishing. If you want to make a true analogy, you wouldn't be able to shoot anything over an 8pt buck. Anything bigger than that gets to keep walking. Then we'd have all the mature deer bucks we needed - you know for the balance and health of the herd and all - and everyone would be happy.

I agree. Maybe there should be a slot limit. No spike or forks and nothing over 9 pts. Maybe we can start hunting with a tranquilizer gun and photo and release.

[TruthWalleyes]

I just hope that the regs for 2012 are missing 5 pages in the deer section...APR - Good Riddance.

[eyedawg]

What is so bad about the Apr?

[honker23]

The analogy was referring to the fact that a law was needed because we can't agree or show restraint in regards to free will harvest. Do you think there was some resistance to the first laws in the late 1800s, sure but we can look back and say I'm glad they did. On a side note the original non-resident fee was 100 times the resident.

[kern]

I guess my big question is, what is the best outcome one can hope for with new changes or laws? I'm fairly satified with deer hunting in general. The biggest concern I have is being able to find a private land spot to hunt.

[TruthWalleyes]

What is so bad about the Apr?

I don't think it is a change for the better. It is managing antler size...not deer herd populations. We do need to continue to set appropriate limits for areas of the state. I don't think inches of antlers is doing anybody any good...except POSSIBLY helping those who drool over horns.

The more we 'focus' on horns, the less likely you'll find a private spot to hunt.

[psepuncher]

my hypothetical numbers aren't that far off from your numbers. how many guys lied they shot a button buck when asked, or even knew it was a button buck, i've seen people post pictures on here that they shot a nice doe and the picture is clearly a button buck.

on the contrary shooting a few more antlerless {button bucks} will help sustain more mature bucks. Matter of fact with dispersal of young bucks your neighbor will probably take him anyway, so why not just keep the doe around that's bringing in Mr biggs.

..anyway

Posted on November 10, 2011 by Brad Dokken

It’s hardly surprising, given the anecdotal reports I heard from opening weekend, but the deer kill after the first three days of season in Minnesota was down about 19 percent from last year.

Hunters had registered about 73,000 deer after the first three days, compared with 91,000 last year.

------

herd reduction also plays the first key role in deer ratio's. You're needing to hammer on the does and fawns to bring that ratio to your liking. Less deer in the harvested data seems right on track.

[eyedawg]

I guess I don't know how it can hurt by letting small immature bucks go. Wouldn't that be helping with herd population also?

[kern]

I guess I don't know how it can hurt by letting small immature bucks go. Wouldn't that be helping with herd population also?

But my question remains, who is it helping? In my opinion, it will help the people that have the private land to hunt. Then it will become a question for these people not if they get a big buck, it will become a question of how big.

[ERdeerhunter]

How about this: A quality buck license? Create a license for those hunters who want to hunt only large bucks. Set the price at $55-$75, those who are deer hunting for meat and memories can still buy a regular antlerless only license. Bucks can be managed through hunters wallets. Those not interested in antlers still have opportunity to fill the freezer. Less pressure on big bucks as fewer tags are bought to target them, on the other hand if the tags are popular it results in increased revenue for DNR.

I don't know, I can't even honestly say I'm for or against what I just proposed, just trying to throw another idea out there. You guys can debate the details.

[96trigger]

Quote:

Hey Trigger, still not sure where you stand on the subject..

I'm in the middle, leaning left Honestly, I like them, but my world wouldn't end tomorrow if they went away.

I was around before APR, and I will be around after if it goes away. I will continue to hunt all three seasons as long as I can legally do so. Would I like to see more mature bucks, sure, most would want to. Its like asking would I like to win the lottery. It won't happen though. I normally have one encounter with a mature buck a year. Some years it works and I get a shot, but more often than not, I don't. Since APR, I am still only averaging one encounter a year with a mature buck. However, I have noticed other people having more success than usual. So I think the regulations are working like they were intended to. I also think the number of does is way down, so if they were using it as a harvest tool, I think that is also being effective.

[kern]

How about this: A quality buck license? Create a license for those hunters who want to hunt only large bucks. Set the price at $55-$75, those who are deer hunting for meat and memories can still buy a regular antlerless only license. Bucks can be managed through hunters wallets. Those not interested in antlers still have opportunity to fill the freezer. Less pressure on big bucks as fewer tags are bought to target them, on the other hand if the tags are popular it results in increased revenue for DNR.

I don't know, I can't even honestly say I'm for or against what I just proposed, just trying to throw another idea out there. You guys can debate the details.

I would be in favor of something like this but hunting is already become a rich man sport. So that would be penalizing the less fortunate. My idea has always been for lottery areas, if you are drawn for a doe permit, you just gave up your buck for the year. So in certain areas that might save alot of does but guys might stop appling as well.

[psepuncher]

I guess I don't know how it can hurt by letting small immature bucks go. Wouldn't that be helping with herd population also?

Not with breeding stock,and an overabundance throws a kink in the habitat that will sustain more quality deer. If it were all about feeding them corn then it'd be easier like in Iowa.