Did you know that according to DNR survey 75% of hunters oppose party hunting ban

[lakevet]

in NW Minnesota. Read it here:

http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/recreation/hunting/deer/2004nwdeerhuntersurvey.pdf

"While only a relatively small percentage of hunters killed a deer tagged by someone else (8%) or tagged a deer killed by someone else (12.5%), more than 75% of respondents were opposed to a prohibition of “party hunting”."

Any wonder why there is push back from up North against changes to the party hunting tradition?

Even with tweaking it to allow shooting antlerless the majority were still against it.

"Opposition to eliminating “party hunting” for antlered deer was less pronounced than a general prohibition of party hunting, but almost 6 out 10 hunters were opposed to such a regulation. Less than 10% would strongly support such a regulation."

...less than 10% would strongly support it. Sounds like a poor direction to head into.

Obviously the NW area was not cooperative to the party hunting ban in the DNR's bag of new ideas so on to the next step...

In 2005 a new survey. http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/recreation/hunting/deer/2005huntersurvey_fulldoc.pdf

The DNR redid the survey in 4 different geographical areas of Minnesota and looked at the area where the hunters were most unhappy..A soft spot to experiment in........and found it in SE MN. So the fun began.

Even still they could not get a majority to support a cross tagging ban,

"Party hunting

In Minnesota, party hunting does not mean the act of hunting in a group. It specifically means while hunting as a group, individuals can shoot and tag deer for each other (henceforth termed cross-tagging). For this survey, the question was specifically worded to indicate the intent was not to break up the family and friend-hunting units; rather it was to only allow hunters to shoot and tag their own deer. However, given the deeply entrenched nature of cross-tagging, it was not surprising our study showed little support for the complete elimination of this practice. Overall, only 28% indicated any type of support, while 62% opposed the regulation. Specifically, 46% of respondents strongly opposed eliminating cross-tagging. Regionally, there were no differences between our survey areas (Table 3-6).

As the cross-tagging question had been asked on previous surveys conducted on Minnesota deer hunters and achieved very low support (e.g., Fulton et al. 2004), we opted to ask another question that would only address cross-tagging of bucks. In other words, hunters would only be able to shoot and tag antlerless deer for each other. By preserving the option of cross-tagging antlerless deer, we observed an increase in support, albeit it was still below 50%. In total, 46% of respondents indicated they would support that regulation, while 42% indicated opposition. Similar to the results obtained in the previous question, we did not detect any regional differences in opinion (Table 3-7)."

but still went forward with it and now we have the big fight, legislature drug into it, etc. etc. when one only had to look and see only a minority supported it. Even Bluffland Whitetails said is wasn't their preferred choice as it has very little actual impact on buck age structure and number of mature bucks in a population.

Again from above: "By preserving the option of cross-tagging antlerless deer, we observed an increase in support, albeit it was still below 50%."

Still below 50%. And all the solid statistics available show that it will not save enough young bucks to have an impact. It is strictly an "I don't like your family's way of hunting" regulation, ban it cause it "feels right" regulation.

If someone can post a study that shows this type of ban has a significant impact resulting in more "book bucks" let me know. Oh and don't tell Wisconsin they are missing the boat by not having this ban, they are too busy filling the record books with Big Bucks while party hunting.

If I can "party fish" and let my kid catch "my" 12 pound walleye, why can't I let him shoot "my" 12 point buck?

lakevet

[Bear55]

I'm not a huge fan of party hunting but the more I think about it I might as well take advantage of it. Most of the time I pass 15-20 bucks a season and rarely tag one. If I ever have a season where I have the opportunity to shoot 2 or even 3 mature bucks and do it legally by party hunting I might as well go for it. It might never happen but I might as well try.

[cavalierowner]

I like party hunting for just 1 reason. I want to hunt both rifle and muzzleloader season. It doesn't happen very often, but if I shoot a deer during rifle season, someone in my party tags it so I can hunt muzzleloader season. I hope I never have to choose one season or the other because I honestly don't know which I would choose.

[reinhard1]

i've been "party hunting" since my first deer hunt. basicly it's about sharing what we shoot to us. we rarely fill out our tags where we hunt. this way everyone gets some venison weather we get one deer or 3 deer for the four of us. good luck.

[BobT]

I'm not a huge fan of party hunting but the more I think about it I might as well take advantage of it. Most of the time I pass 15-20 bucks a season and rarely tag one. If I ever have a season where I have the opportunity to shoot 2 or even 3 mature bucks and do it legally by party hunting I might as well go for it. It might never happen but I might as well try.

Why would you go against your own personal preference to do that? I don't understand.

[Bear55]

Why would you go against your own personal preference to do that? I don't understand.

I had a feeling someone would ask that, the answer is why not? I hunt hard and pass countless bucks waiting for a nice one, most years I don't tag a buck and I am ok with that. If I am fortunate enough to legally take 2-3 mature bucks in one season I might as well do it, might be several years before I tag another buck after that. I'm not out there shooting 2-3 bucks a year, heck I might never shoot two nice bucks in a season. I only hunt public land so the odds are not super good to behin with. I may not be a fan of party hunting but I am not up in arms against it either. I will leave that to others to worry about, I just want to be out in the woods hunting.

[TruthWalleyes]

Interesting survey, small survey. Only roughly 400 people in the survey, and just under 100 of the group surveyed were part of one of these groups:

Minnesota Deer Hunters Association, Bluffland Whitetails Association, Minnesota Quality Deer Management, Inc., Quality Deer Management Association, Whitetails Unlimitedf. So i'm not that suprised with the results of the survey. I say try again with more people. Cripes, there are a couple hundred thousand that buy a license. I have a hard time believing that nearly 25% of those surveyed (If ACTUALLY A RANDOM POLL) are on some deer association listed above.

To recap...Waste of time and money, should have done it on a bigger scale. Put a survey on-line next year, with link to survey found on back of you license. This method makes tallying no more difficult than the previous process and doesn't require explaining the questions over the phone.

[muskiemanAD]

I would like to see them implement APR when it comes to party hunting. After you shoot a buck, you can party hunt for bucks but they have to have 4 pts on a side after that. That would eliminate the guy that shoots 2 or 3 1.5 year olds.

[goblueM]

Interesting survey, small survey. Only roughly 400 people in the survey, and just under 100 of the group surveyed were part of one of these groups:

Minnesota Deer Hunters Association, Bluffland Whitetails Association, Minnesota Quality Deer Management, Inc., Quality Deer Management Association, Whitetails Unlimitedf. So i'm not that suprised with the results of the survey. I say try again with more people. Cripes, there are a couple hundred thousand that buy a license. I have a hard time believing that nearly 25% of those surveyed (If ACTUALLY A RANDOM POLL) are on some deer association listed above.

To recap...Waste of time and money, should have done it on a bigger scale. Put a survey on-line next year, with link to survey found on back of you license. This method makes tallying no more difficult than the previous process and doesn't require explaining the questions over the phone.

I can't comment on if it was actually a random sample or not, but if you have 400 randomly-selected individuals, that provides plenty of statistical power to confidently and accurately generalize those results to the entire population. What becomes a waste of time and money is surveying a lot more people than you have to, because after a certain point your precision isn't increased at all, but you've spent time/money getting those survey answers and then processing them

[BobT]

I had a feeling someone would ask that, the answer is why not? I hunt hard and pass countless bucks waiting for a nice one, most years I don't tag a buck and I am ok with that. If I am fortunate enough to legally take 2-3 mature bucks in one season I might as well do it, might be several years before I tag another buck after that. I'm not out there shooting 2-3 bucks a year, heck I might never shoot two nice bucks in a season. I only hunt public land so the odds are not super good to behin with. I may not be a fan of party hunting but I am not up in arms against it either. I will leave that to others to worry about, I just want to be out in the woods hunting.

Maybe I was confusing you with someone else, Bear, but I thought you were one who spoke out against party hunting in other threads. My mistake.

[Big Dave2]

I would like to see them implement APR when it comes to party hunting. After you shoot a buck, you can party hunt for bucks but they have to have 4 pts on a side after that. That would eliminate the guy that shoots 2 or 3 1.5 year olds.

How on earth could you ever enforce that? If someone else tags the buck, how do you know who actually shot it? Not to mention the many other flaws I can see in this line of thinking.

[ANYFISH2]

Interesting survey, small survey. Only roughly 400 people in the survey, and just under 100 of the group surveyed were part of one of these groups:

Minnesota Deer Hunters Association, Bluffland Whitetails Association, Minnesota Quality Deer Management, Inc., Quality Deer Management Association, Whitetails Unlimitedf. So i'm not that suprised with the results of the survey. I say try again with more people. Cripes, there are a couple hundred thousand that buy a license. I have a hard time believing that nearly 25% of those surveyed (If ACTUALLY A RANDOM POLL) are on some deer association listed above.

To recap...Waste of time and money, should have done it on a bigger scale. Put a survey on-line next year, with link to survey found on back of you license. This method makes tallying no more difficult than the previous process and doesn't require explaining the questions over the phone.

Do you happen to have the number of participants in these associations? I would guess it is also just a small percentage of the overall hunting public. I am not suprised by the reults either, because must hunters I know are out to enjoy 2 WEEKENDS a year with thier party and try to get deer as a bonus. All a while allowing everybody to still hunt throughout the 2 weekends.

I for one could live with no cross-tagging of bucks, but I have no real reason to strongly support it. I all ready chose to only shoot my one.

[gixxer01]

Could also be a reason for poor population numbers. I was told a long time ago to only shoot what I plan to eat. A hunter shooting an animal he doesn't need is unethical in my eyes. I've had plenty of hunters ask if I'd tag a deer they shot. If a hunter doesn't want or need it, don't shoot it. I will never ask for someone to help me fill my tag.

[hockeybc69]

Nobody is taking my tag..... Simple as that.

I have 3.5 months to hunt and shoot what I want.... And I am not giving that up to someone that got lucky early in the season, and wants to take another "good one".

Pretty simple. Decide what you want, you shoot, you are done.

Cross tagging is not allowed on our property for doe or buck... You shoot it, you tag it, you eat it.

[muskiemanAD]

How on earth could you ever enforce that? If someone else tags the buck, how do you know who actually shot it? Not to mention the many other flaws I can see in this line of thinking.

[gixxer01]

Another point to look at is this poll was taken in NW MN where venison probably makes up a good majority of a persons diet for reasons other than its taste.

[TruthWalleyes]

I can't comment on if it was actually a random sample or not, but if you have 400 randomly-selected individuals, that provides plenty of statistical power to confidently and accurately generalize those results to the entire population. What becomes a waste of time and money is surveying a lot more people than you have to, because after a certain point your precision isn't increased at all, but you've spent time/money getting those survey answers and then processing them

I strongly disagree. There are, i don't know... maybe a hundred hunting zones in minnesota. So i think that a random selection of 400ppl is not going to proivde feedback from all areas of the state. Also, i think there are something like 800,000 deer licenses bought each year, sampling 0.05% of those who hunted is not statistical power.

It wouldn't cost much to add a note on the back of the license with a HSOforum to visit, or automated telephone number. Use your license # when doing the survey. Use excel to look at the results...This doesn't have to be complicated folks.

[Gordie]

I agree with truth it's not a good enough test I think that with the ELS system in place that the state has it would be as simple as a click from the vendor for a yes or no answer . Don't say it can't be done as the water fowlers do it every season to get HIP certified. Just on simple question and your answer is tabulated then thevresults would be more verifiable.

[goblueM]

Sigh. Truth, you're arguing against math using opinions, which is a losing battle.

400 randomly-selected individuals is going to be plenty for almost all applications. The margin of error for 400 individuals is about 5%. That means that if we randomly select 400 individuals, there is a 5% chance that our sample does not accurately represent the true population. I'll restate: there is essentially a 5% chance that the views of 400 randomly-selected individuals DO NOT represent the views of the population at-large. We can be very confident of our results by sampling 400 randomly-selected individuals.

Population size has absolutely NO bearing on how many individuals you need to survey. Here is a very math-friendly explanation: http://www.robertniles.com/stats/sample.shtml

Once you get above a certain number of samples, you are wasting money to get very small increases in precision. For example, if the DNR surveyed 5 times as many people (2000) they would only go from a 5% margin of error to 2%.

You are correct about multiple hunting zones, if the DNR wants to manage party hunting on a per-zone basis, then that opens a whole new can of worms. You'd have to survey each desired management area individually if you wanted to apply the same methodology. But I'm talking about managing on a large scale, not on a per-zone basis.

[Bear55]

Maybe I was confusing you with someone else, Bear, but I thought you were one who spoke out against party hunting in other threads. My mistake.

Oh I probably have, along with APR and QDM and everthing else but I just kind of gave up and softened my stance on everything. I sure wouldn't complain if the whole state was closed to party hunting but I'm not going to fight to stop it either. Not being a politician I have the ability to change my views on certain subjects and try and keep an open mind.

[BobT]

Could also be a reason for poor population numbers. I was told a long time ago to only shoot what I plan to eat. A hunter shooting an animal he doesn't need is unethical in my eyes. I've had plenty of hunters ask if I'd tag a deer they shot. If a hunter doesn't want or need it, don't shoot it. I will never ask for someone to help me fill my tag.

Party hunting doesn't necessarily translate into taking unwanted or unneeded animals. Maybe that's been your experience and I feel for you if that's the case. In our party it's about sharing the hunting experience. In most cases, the person that makes the kill also tags the animal but the advantage with party hunting is that person's hunt doesn't have to be over simply because they tagged a deer.

My daughter (age fifteen at the time) was fortunate to be in the right location two years ago and have opportunity to fill her tag by 9:00am opening day. Because we were in a hunting party, her hunt didn’t have to end two hours after it began and considering we drove over 200 miles to get there, she was grateful she didn’t have to stay back at camp while the rest of us went out hunting for the next couple days. That same afternoon she got a second opportunity and filled my tag, which I was glad to forfeit toward her experience. As it turned out, our party of seven only got three deer that year. We share the meat and we share the kills. It’s all part of our hunting experience.

This last fall, my daughter and I got no opportunities at all. In fact, of our party of nine, only two hunters even saw deer for the first four days of the season. My brother didn’t take any because they were small bucks but his sone was able to take a couple and so we didn’t have to come home empty handed. I only hunt four days a year and being part of a party improves my odds of getting a little venison anyway.

Edit:

I almost forgot. I whole-heartedly agree that one must never kill what he does not plan to eat. This is the primary reason I will not hunt coyotes, prairie dogs, or other varmits. I won’t kill them because I won’t eat them. This is also the reason we go to great lengths to protect the meat as we transport it or process it. Nothing upsets me more than to see a headless carcass laying in a road ditch or at a landfill.

[Musky Buck]

Makes sense, who would want to ban it if it helps save your parties muzzleloader licenses or bow for later for those that do it. It makes sense for legit party hunters and non-legit find a tag so called party hunters. Surprised the % wasn't higher. I'm way ok with parties that do it the right way, unfortunately that isn't the way it's primarily done in my area. I really don't think the way it is there's really a way to actually ban it. We shouldn't really outlaw deer drives as nocturnal as they are that method should be up to the parties and landowners. Done right, it's a fun way for people to share the hunt together. My gut tells me most people do it right so lets not ban it because of the few game hoggers, they'd still game hog it anyway.

[james_walleye]

Goblue you are 100% correct on the effectiveness of this sample size.....

[TruthWalleyes]

Alright, I fold...I guess since all but 1 of the questions is a state wide partyhunting question that 400ppl may be enough to get a general synopsis of the population. I'm still struggeling to understand how nearly 25% of those randomly selected were affiliated with some horn porn organization. Oh, and the fact that 70% of those questioned were shotgun hunters.

[Bear55]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_darned_lies,_and_statistics