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

[Musky Buck]

Bob that's exactly what I meant in my post and when they can't find a tag they wait for darkness to worry less and save their tag for the next bow hunt, rifle season or muzzleloader. What scares me some is every youth I talked to primarily 15-20 year olds are breaking that law and or baiting, so likely are their dads and they are, throw out the rules it's all about getting. Sad sad year for me to ask the question how'd deer season treat you, all I got back was laws being laughed at and broken like it's absolutely no big deal, am I hurting you or your family, no, it's just a deer.

[hockeybc69]

MB,

You sure have a lot of corrupt people around you.....

You sure that every 15-20 year old is breaking laws??

I cant pinpoint a single person in our area that I know is intentionally breaking any laws.

[gixxer01]

My issue with party hunting, again, is that the outcomes of the two scenarios (legal party hunting and illegal type) are identical. That being, one hunter shoots two deer, two deer die, both deer get tagged, both deer get eaten. If the law describes one as legal because the hunter was in the field, (therefore entitled to a deer by law), yet the outcome is the same, how can either be considered legal or ethical?

[Musky Buck]

Is there any land for sale near you BC ? Better re-read some yes every 15-20 year old " I " talked to broke our game laws that is correct. I'm done talking to anyone about deer season, I don't want to know, it's just better when you don't know. Now I probably only talked to maybe a dozen people, not a large sample but it's easy to assume their dads are right in on it with them, that's who they hunt with and where they learned it most likely. Maybe in your area what you don't know don't hurt ya. My dad and I have both wondered the last however many years why is deer hunting 1/2 as good not even, but why such a decline in our area, why are there no wintering deer anymore, where'd they go and will they come back, only time will tell. So hockey you've never heard the before shooting hours gunfire or after hour gunfire ? It's a yearly thing in our area, we actually wager bets on the morning field hunters, who gets closest to the first shot of the day, none of us place our bet after shooting light. I think the problem in my area is competitiveness, there's simply more deer hunters than deer so you better shoot via bow,rifle,musket before the next guy does and that isn't going to get better and now we arm these clowns with longer seasons and reasons to save their tags and several of them are now baiting, the only way to end it is to buy up all the land and hope a few of the farmers say no to them hunting the area. I wish those farmers hunt deer, they'd see and understand what's going on, they really don't care much about the deer, they say shoot em all. I am sorry about all the rants about where I hunt, it does help to let it out on here, I think I'm following my dads path, when you don't or almost can't enjoy it anymore just quit. Most of these lawbreakers are likely going to outlive me so it's not a good situation, you hope they'll grow up or out of it, but they're actually becoming more extreme about deer hunting. I definitely don't look forward to November 3rd like I did 12-15 years ago.

[Musky Buck]

Most of you will be happy to know I'm on hiatus until May, not jail lol, my last shot, Lou, bring back old zone 4 to the farmland and the multizone buck tag, drop everyone can muzzleoad and don't worry that so many now have invested money into it, only allow it during high deer number years. And you tag your own buck and that ends your season of carrying the legal weapon, you can help make drives or sit with another or be a dragger. Baiting deer is a icky way to hunt deer unless it's in an urban sharpshooter area. Later gators. MB

[BobT]

My issue with party hunting, again, is that the outcomes of the two scenarios (legal party hunting and illegal type) are identical. That being, one hunter shoots two deer, two deer die, both deer get tagged, both deer get eaten. If the law describes one as legal because the hunter was in the field, (therefore entitled to a deer by law), yet the outcome is the same, how can either be considered legal or ethical?

I'm not sure you understood my post. I demonstrated how making party hunting illegal won't change anything with regard to those who are using tags from non-hunters. They could continue to do that either way. Get caught with the deer in possession but not the hunter who's tag is affixed and they would have some explaining to do.

Your definition of ethical is quite different from mine. Taking a deer and wasting the meat would be unethical. Taking a deer illegally would be unethical. Taking a deer legally is not unethical hunting.

Sounds to me that your biggest gripe is that you simply don't like party hunting. You're free to your opinion and you are not required to engage in party hunting. But I don't see where you have shown a good valid reason for holding to your position.

[BobT]

Bob that's exactly what I meant in my post and when they can't find a tag they wait for darkness to worry less and save their tag for the next bow hunt, rifle season or muzzleloader. What scares me some is every youth I talked to primarily 15-20 year olds are breaking that law and or baiting, so likely are their dads and they are, throw out the rules it's all about getting. Sad sad year for me to ask the question how'd deer season treat you, all I got back was laws being laughed at and broken like it's absolutely no big deal, am I hurting you or your family, no, it's just a deer.

My point exactly. The laws don't stop those who are willing to take the risk. I often wonder why they bother buying any licenses. Illegal is illegal and being illegal with or without a license has no bearing.

[hockeybc69]

How about no party hunting/cross tagging in lottery permit areas at least?

Seems a little pointless to allow others to shoot deer for party members, when the permits are already being limited due to low deer numbers....

[Getanet]

My issue with party hunting, again, is that the outcomes of the two scenarios (legal party hunting and illegal type) are identical. That being, one hunter shoots two deer, two deer die, both deer get tagged, both deer get eaten. If the law describes one as legal because the hunter was in the field, (therefore entitled to a deer by law), yet the outcome is the same, how can either be considered legal or ethical?

In my opinion you’re looking at party hunting backwards in both the spirit of the law and how many, many hunters practice it in MN. It seems there are guys that look at party hunting as an individual sport and guys that look at it as a team sport. Neither are wrong, but the guys that think of it as a team sport tend to share the work and the bounty. In their eyes allowing someone else to fill their tag is a sacrifice they are happy to make, quite the opposite of unethical actually. Making drives can be a lot of work and they’ll gladly allow a friend or family member to fill their tag if two deer come out to a poster on a drive. And since drives are a lot of work, someone with an open tag won’t feel right about making everyone else do all the hard labor of making drive after drive until they get a deer. In that case they will gladly be part of a few drives of their own, and have no problem with someone else filling their tag, even if that person has shot a deer already that season. Particularly if there are younger or older members of their party.

The party hunting law is written to allow people who are hunting together to decide if they will allow someone else to fill their tag. Neither the letter nor spirit of the law allows people to shoot deer for people who aren’t hunting with them or shoot more deer than the party has tags for.

[gixxer01]

Fewer deer would be shot if legal party hunting didn't exist. Simple enough?

I'm getting off this effin train! It gets real tiresome reitterating points I've already made to people that jump aboard.

It's no wonder elected officials don't stand up for their ethics!

[Getanet]

Yes, that's pretty simple. You'd have less angst if you didn't throw around terms like ethics when what you really want is less deer being shot. There are a number of ways to get deer harvest numbers down that have nothing to do with party hunting.

[fishuhalik]

i would think this is pretty straightforward. majority rules, regardless of what we want. sucks, but it's fair

[gixxer01]

The angst comes from having to repeat myself. Ethics are debatable, I'm aware of that. Fewer deer being shot is only a small part of what I'm trying to convey. I can't help but think that too many people feel hunting is nothing without filling every tag possible. I wish people would realize that sharing tags solidifies the notion that everyone gets a deer no matter how lucky or skillful one is.

No one is ensured anything in this lifetime, a filled deer tag should be no different.

I find it ironic that on a seperate thread people are overwhelmingly unanimous on keeping the hunt sporting by saying no to baiting, but yet here its ok for some one to tag a deer they didn't even shoot.

I'm sure somebody will find one snipit of this they can argue.

[Getanet]

Hunter success rate hovers around 33%, with party hunting. I think we're a long way from the notion that everyone gets a deer.

[gixxer01]

And yet areas of MN had some of the lowest harvest reports in years. There is more than one cause of this and I won't pin it solely on sharing tags. From a management standpoint, I don't see how someone could argue that it didn't play a role in reducing deer numbers.

I didn't hear your take on the sporting aspect of party hunting?

[certified jumbo]

Hunter success rate hovers around 33%, with party hunting. I think we're a long way from the notion that everyone gets a deer.

+1 on that.

i respect everyones opinion and i'm not trying to change anyones mind. our hunting party has enjoyed party hunting over the years and it has been a nice staple in our camp. just my 2cents.

[lakevet]

Anyone have any info to support that cross tagging ban has a significant effect on the number of bucks. If so please post link/references for all to see.

here is one stating it does not have a significant effect:

http://outdoornews.com/minnesota/news/article_266e7a11-ab11-5e40-a082-1f8d27a33558.html

a quote from that article regarding buck cross tagging ban:

"The regulation likely won't change the harvest of antlered deer much - about 7 percent to 10 percent of successful hunters kill two bucks - but: "I have unabashedly said that if you want more mature bucks in the population, why do we let people shoot bucks for each other?" Cornicelli said."

AGAIN "The regulation likely won't change the harvest of antlered deer much"

And I admire Lou C. and his handling of a lot of tough situations, but I have to ask, why does he never cite conclusive evidence to back up his position of banning my gifting my tag to the person of my choice who is legally hunting afield at the same time with me? He consistently does it with APR's showing it saves 75% of young bucks.

Instead he raises a question. This typically is done to cast doubt on the opposite point of view when you don't have strong evidence to defend your position. "I have unabashedly said" is not a fact but an opinion.

There is no conclusive strong scientific basis for a cross tagging ban. Period.

Also remember the buck harvest bounces up and down from a variety of reasons. Recently it has been as low as 64,867 in 1997 to a high of 116,612 in 2004. Then back down to 95,594 just one year later in 2005. You have to have a regulation that has a very significant impact to have a significant effect.

With the buck cross tagging ban I have yet to see any strong evidence it makes a difference, as stated above. So let's evaluate it honestly and let it expire when it comes up, as planned, for review.

I do wonder if the two regs were "bundled" so improvement that was due to APR's could be blurred to support buck cross tagging ban, even though the cross tagging ban did not contribute meaningfully.

lakevet

p.s.

Again, Wisconsin and Iowa allow cross tagging of bucks.

[hockeybc69]

What do you mean it likely wont impact buck harvest???

It clearly will lower the buck harvest.

OK, the hunter with the open tag may end up harvesting a buck himself later in the year, but it clearly lowers the harvest of bucks.

Baby steps!!! You cant run a marathon until you learn to walk? Right??

Then lets save that 5%(or whatever the number) of bucks for next years hunts and start to build on it.

[gixxer01]

I have a theory for the lack of evidence: it is simply impossible to know how many deer are harvested using cross tagging. The DNR is only concerned with harvest numbers, not who shot which animal. If they were to require each hunter to report how many deer they shot, they would probably better understand the number of deer harvested with this method.

[Gordie]

I have a theory for the lack of evidence: it is simply impossible to know how many deer are harvested using cross tagging. The DNR is only concerned with harvest numbers, not who shot which animal. If they were to require each hunter to report how many deer they shot, they would probably better understand the number of deer harvested with this method.

Thats the number that we only should be concerned with is the Harvest numbers and Not who shot them. Its very simple if you don't like it don't do it and the rest can still abid what is legal and there will always be the ones that break the law so that shouldn't even be considered unless you know how it is then report it

Party hunting is as much a tradition in some deer camps as deer hunting itself. As long as its a legal form of party hunting its no ones bussiness but the party hunters preforming it.

If can't follow the rules of party hunting then you have to live with it. someone once told me " to thyne own self be true" I still try and follow that saying in what ever I do.

[Big Dave2]

I find it ironic that on a seperate thread people are overwhelmingly unanimous on keeping the hunt sporting by saying no to baiting, but yet here its ok for some one to tag a deer they didn't even shoot.

I certainly do not agree with gixxer01 on this issue in fact I think he is quite off the mark but I do also find it ironic that so many are willing to hide behind "ethics" as being the reason they are opposed to baiting deer when in reality the reason they oppose deer baiting is the same reason that gixxer01 opposes party hunting.

[gixxer01]

I would be interested in seeing a poll of the number of deer hunters that are satisfied with the state of the deer herd here in MN. After what I witnessed and heard from other hunters last year, I would put the satisfaction level fairly low . Obviously the DNR senses changes need to be made of there would be no talk of changes. I applaud them for looking at the underlying issues rather than treat the population symptoms.

Lou C referenced one of the most basic of management principles in that article If you want more deer on your land, don't shoot as many as you can. It applies to both non-party hunters and those that do.

The controversial side to it is that the deer being cross tagged (more often than not in my experience with party hunts) tend to be the does. The same animals that control population from year to year. While the coveted buck tag is generally the last to go up for auction.

[gixxer01]

I certainly do not agree with gixxer01 on this issue in fact I think he is quite off the mark but I do also find it ironic that so many are willing to hide behind "ethics" as being the reason they are opposed to baiting deer when in reality the reason they oppose deer baiting is the same reason that gixxer01 opposes party hunting.

It would appear safe to say that you are all for baiting and party hunting. Baiting gives a hunter an advantage which 90% opposed. 3 guns going after that last doe gives the hunters an advantage, but since its tradition is viewed as sporting or "ethical".

My talk meter can't take much more of this thread.

[BobT]

How about no party hunting/cross tagging in lottery permit areas at least?

Seems a little pointless to allow others to shoot deer for party members, when the permits are already being limited due to low deer numbers....

I could go along with your idea in areas where anlterless lottery is in effect. Well…I’d have to if it was the law. :-) Only those who have the antlerless permit would be allowed to take an antlerless deer. Of course, enforcing such a law would be near impossible. Once it’s tagged, there’s no way to know who actually squeezed the trigger. Ethical hunters would abide by the law, however, knowing the intent of the law is to protect the very resource we enjoy.

[BobT]

Quote:

Lou C referenced one of the most basic of management principles in that article If you want more deer on your land, don't shoot as many as you can.

We put our trust in the experience, education, expertise, and resources of the DNR biologists to make smart choices regarding our resource laws. If they determine that an area is to be lottery, management, intensive harvest, or even closed to hunting we or at least I expect they have made that decision based on reasonable comprehensive data. I expect they have a pretty good idea about how many the average hunter will take and how many hunters will likely hunt the area. The harvest rules should reflect that knowledge.

The DNR cannot expect us to micromanage our resources. That would be foolish and derelict of duty. If they do then we might as well save our money and fire the whole lot. If Joe Hunter takes five deer in an area because the DNR has determined that it is safe for the herd to do so, there should be no issue with that. If it is an issue then I for one would question the credibility of the DNR.

Anyone that thinks our deer herd is in trouble is not paying attention to the number of deer that are out there. Our deer herd is in very good shape in terms of numbers and following this warm winter if our spring is decent at all, we can expect the herd to be terrific next year. Just because some Joe Schmoe Hunter didn’t get his deer is not necessarily an indicator of a poor deer herd. For the record, neither my daughter or myself so much as even saw a flag last year but we know there were plenty of deer around. That’s why it’s called hunting and not called selective killing. An argument might be made about the quality of the deer herd but that’s a different topic altogether and has been discuessed at great length in recent threads.