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

[goblueM]

I'm not sure where you are getting the shotgun hunter numbers from, because there is no mention of the word "shotgun" in the entire report.

[gixxer01]

Quote: 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.

[LightningBG]

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.

Yes, you should try.

Once upon a time I dropped 2 nice bucks within about 5 seconds of each other. They were standing there together. When the first got hit, he jumped and took off. The other one looked around like "what the F just happened?". Bad call on his part, because he dropped right there. Pretty big rush. And the second was cross tagged by my hunting partner who really didn't care if he shot one or not, he needed the meat and told me before hand to fire away. (but he would have shot one if the opportunity arose)

[LightningBG]

We got tired of watching him tag deer with tags bought by his 85 year old grandpa, who hasn't hunted in well over two decades. The law allows this to happen.

What you're describing isn't cross-tagging!

[john skarie]

I've always been a "party" hunter in all the groups I've hunted in.

To us, it's just a matter of sharing the meat. If I'm in Ely hunting with my buddy up there we have 2 tags to fill and if one of us fills both great. If only one of us shoots a deer we split the meat up 50/50.

That's how my family always hunted growing up too. Everyone shot deer until the tags were filled. The only exception was we never shot deer for the kids that have never shot one before. If thier tag didn't get filled so be it. Nobody was going to take away thier chance at thier 1st deer.

To me that is what hunting is about. People going out to put meat in the freezer, and working as a team.

For those that just want to shoot as many deer as they personally can, and buy tags for people that don't hunt, well I think that is pretty low and feel sorry for those that look at hunting that way.

JS

[gixxer01]

What you're describing isn't cross-tagging!

[john skarie]

The difference is it's illegal to tag a deer for someone that isn't actually in your hunting party. More specifically that you aren't actually out in the field hunting with.

Buying a tag isn't hunting.

JS

[Big Dave2]

You're right, it isn't cross tagging. However, it is no different than someone giving up their tag to someone else.

It is most certainly different.

[gixxer01]

Guys, I'm not arguing the law. What you guys are doing is completely legal, I know that. What my buddy did is illegal, I know that, that is why he no longer hunts with us (read my previous posts). What I am trying to convey is the hypocracy within the law.

Just because I put orange on, loaded my gun, and sat 100yrds from you makes it legal to tag a deer I didn't shoot. Grandpa sits at the cabin with tag in hand and gets arrested for tagging a deer he didn't shoot. So because he didn't step outside with a gun, he and his grandson are breaking the law.

That's the law! Both, to me, are unethical, but only one is illegal, yet little difference between the two. One man tried the other didn't.

[goblueM]

One man tried the other didn't.

and there is your ethical difference. One situation is the guys are actually hunting afield together, the other is just buying a license so one guy can shoot more deer

[gixxer01]

So because one man bought a tag and struck out, he is entitled to a deer for trying? Or since his buddy is a better shot or was in a better spot?

[john skarie]

Maybe you aren't understanding the concept of party hunting. It's being able to shoot a deer for the person you are hunting with.

It doesn't mean you can buy as many tags as you can find people for that aren't hunting and shoot more deer.

If you can't see the difference in that, or understand why that is illegal then the concept of hunting is lost on you.

JS

[Gordie]

I hunted with the party style hunting my whole life and in fact the one area we hunted the farmer was the brother of who we hunted with the brother loved venison but didnt hunt so we all in our party gifted him venison when we butcherd deer.

It was the ethical way to do it

There is nothing wrong with party hunting the problem is that people try and twist the legality of it.

[gixxer01]

Maybe you aren't understanding the concept of party hunting. It's being able to shoot a deer for the person you are hunting with.

It doesn't mean you can buy as many tags as you can find people for that aren't hunting and shoot more deer.

If you can't see the difference in that, or understand why that is illegal then the concept of hunting is lost on you.

JS

I completely understand party hunting! It means that I can shoot your deer for you if you can't shoot one for yourself so long as we hunt together! The problem with it is that some use the concept of party hunting to do exactly what you and I stated is illegal. And I know people who do it. Some people shoot deer and look for tags later. Even within a hunting party. Deer drives are a prime example: 7 tags but 8 deer killed. I've gotten the call before. It was entirely legal for the hunter to shoot more deer than what he had tags for, until everyone else tagged their own. Had one person missed they would have been completely legal, but since no one did they broke the law. I just can't support a law that could allow this to happen.

I'm glad most people here do it responsibly and legaly, I just feel the law opens up too many pitfalls and opportunities for wanton waste.

[john skarie]

The law doesn't allow that to happen. Shooting to many deer on a deer drive means you don't know how to do it properly.

It doesn't matter what the law is if people break it because they are stupid or don't care about the law.

JS

[smnduck]

Gordie hit it spot on. Well said Gordie!

[BobT]

gixxer01,

I think you're trying to blame party hunting for something that is totally illegal no matter how you put it. You say party hunting allows….encourages…enables…hunter Joe to buy a license for grandma and tag a deer with it. I disagree. The same problem can exist either way.

Scenario #1 – Party Hunting.

Hunter Joe buys a license for grandma who doesn’t hunt. Joe shoots a deer. Legally, grandma must be hunting in the party at the time of the kill, grandma must validate her tag at the kill site, and grandma must accompany the deer as it is transported from the kill site. From the time of the kill, the deer has been taken illegally and Joe best not be caught with the deer in transport or he’s in deep do-do.

Scenario #2 – No Party Hunting.

Hunter Joe buys a license for grandma who doesn’t hunt. Joe shoots a deer. Legally, grandma must make the kill, grandma must validate her tag at the kill site, and grandma must accompany the deer as it is transported from the kill site. From the time of the kill, the deer has been taken illegally and Joe best not be caught with the deer or he’s in deep do-do.

The only difference between these two scenarios is whether or not grandma makes the kill. In both scenarios grandma must be hunting, grandma must validate her tag at the kill site, and grandma must accompany the deer as it is transported from the kill site.

The one thing that will change by eliminating party hunting is that it will take away the ability of allowing all members of a party to hunt for the duration because you would be required to have an unused tag on your person in order to hunt legally. That will have zero effect on the problem you describe but will take opportunity away from legal and ethical hunters.

[TruthWalleyes]

I'm not sure where you are getting the shotgun hunter numbers from, because there is no mention of the word "shotgun" in the entire report.

Your right. It was firearms, not shotgun.

[Jameson]

There is a 2-buck limit in the 5 NW counties of MN?

[gixxer01]

BobT,

I believe you to be 100% correct in the fact that banning would not stop law breakers from skirting the law. I even made a reference to your exact statement in a previous post. Hunter Joe would probably still use grandma to shoot more deer. Still, other than scenario 1 being illegal, I see no difference between the two. Deer were harvested by someone for someone else. I don't agree with either.

Edit: Sorry, just realized both scenarios were legal, still doesn't change my position.

John,

It was an unfortunate situation that party found themselves in. I'm glad I wasn't a part of it. I won't participate in deer drives anymore due to this and similar ethical dilemmas. The conversations that folllowed this drive raised some interesting questions, however, and I pose them to you.

Who was truly at fault? Was it the hunter that shot more than one deer? Was it the hunter that shot the last deer? Was it everybody that shot a deer on that drive? My understanding of the law would put the fault with the hunter who shot an animal after all tags were filled.

[Getanet]

Who was truly at fault? Was it the hunter that shot more than one deer? Was it the hunter that shot the last deer? Was it everybody that shot a deer on that drive? My understanding of the law would put the fault with the hunter who shot an animal after all tags were filled.

By the letter of the law, the last person who shot a deer would probably be the person at fault. But, in this situation the whole party should be hanging their heads. Before starting a drive it should be discussed how many tags are available. If you're posting, you better be counting shots. You have to assume each shot means a deer is down. In all that excitement, if you're uncertain how many shots have been fired you don't squeeze the trigger. You can always try doing another drive once the smoke has cleared and the tags have been figured out.

[gixxer01]

Couldn't agree more! That is how it should be. Since its impossible to determine who shot the last deer, however, shouldn't fault go to the entire party? The conversation got ugly since, no one individual did anything illegal, but everyone broke the law. Had the ability to party hunt not been in place, each hunter would have tagged his own deer and there would not been a deer left untagged. The fact that each hunter has the right to shoot more than his share is where the breakdown started. People can argue it was a lack of communication, yada, yada all they want, but without the ability to shoot more than his share, this problem would never have happened. The fact that this problem can and will continue to exist, is enough proof that the law is flawed.

Continue to party hunt, I don't care. I pray that this never happens to you. I hope some people realize that under this law, it can. And, deer will continue to be shot for those that aren't lucky enough to get their own.

[bottom-bouncer]

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.

Hockey can I join your party. I dont understand why so many cant accept this as common practice

[john skarie]

When doing a drive, only posters should be allowed to shoot, for safety and to control animals down.

It's really pretty simple to do a drive in a way where everyone posting knows if deer are down. You should be within shouting distance, if not then you assume any shots heard are animals down. We always limit a poster to 1 deer on a drive. If it takes multiple drives to fill out than that is what you need to do.

Personally I haven't participated in deer drives for since the mid 90's.

We used to do them with our neighbors in farm country. We usually let younger hunters post to have opportunities to shoot deer on the last day of the season. Now we all older and hunt on our own, party hunting but not doing drives.

JS

[BobT]

BobT,

I believe you to be 100% correct in the fact that banning would not stop law breakers from skirting the law. I even made a reference to your exact statement in a previous post. Hunter Joe would probably still use grandma to shoot more deer. Still, other than scenario 1 being illegal, I see no difference between the two. Deer were harvested by someone for someone else. I don't agree with either.

Edit: Sorry, just realized both scenarios were legal, still doesn't change my position.

John,

It was an unfortunate situation that party found themselves in. I'm glad I wasn't a part of it. I won't participate in deer drives anymore due to this and similar ethical dilemmas. The conversations that folllowed this drive raised some interesting questions, however, and I pose them to you.

Who was truly at fault? Was it the hunter that shot more than one deer? Was it the hunter that shot the last deer? Was it everybody that shot a deer on that drive? My understanding of the law would put the fault with the hunter who shot an animal after all tags were filled.

Your issue as you stated it, had to do with people buying licenses for non-hunters and using those tags. You indicated that this was your reasoning behind your position against party hunting. The truth is, party hunting or not, the same problem will exist. So what is the real reason you are against party hunting?