Mn is falling behind in B&C entries

[Bear55]

Is that really all there is to growing bigger bucks, Everyone agreeing to let them grow ?

Pretty much yes, it is as simple as letter them get a few years under their belt. I know guys who do it on public land, what they have that most of us don't is a bunch of neighbors who cooperate and set a common goal. Anyone can do it anywhere, its just easier said than done.

[Musky Buck]

Who cares really ? Yes I'm going to let that 150" buck walk so maybe he's 170 the next year, aint happenin, he might not grow larger. If we all waited for a booner how many of us would have yet to take a legal buck. Oh man if we only moved the hunt out of the rut then they'd grow another 75"es and become booners like in Iowa where large tracts of land and less hunters is the norm, really now, if your pursuit is focused on the nobody or few should care record book go hunt for a beast in Canada. We yes we have way too much opportunity with the sheer volume of hunters in our state with party hunting. Why has it changed, more hunters on smaller parcels of land competing with each other with way way more days in the field and often an endless supply of tags. Back when I started those things were reversed, less hunters with less opportunity on larger parcels of land. From 1984-? we had a 2 day gun season with no muzzy option, big bucks were getting the chance to grow on unhunted parcels, or even hunted parcels since the season was so short, weather could kill your season and did a few years, that isn't the case anymore. The small dairy farms of the into the 80's are hunting properties today. This year is MN chance after a way mild winter. If those states that are now where the big ones are or you think they are get a tag there, how many Booners are on our walls that never got measured, at least 3 I'd guess are on my uncles walls, with so much QDM and Go Grow etc. and it's expansion why aren't we producing them ? More food plots etc. etc. All we can do is let the little buck walk and hope he can shed that rack, and likely several more, that's step 1, no yearling becomes a giant without surviving a few seasons, there's simply less places for that to happen with regularity and less people willing to let him go by. Do I want to see better bucks certainly, but reality says it'll be a struggle. Who taught us that the record book is important, not my grandpa's.

[lakevet]

And B&C entries from the Southeast’s nine states reached 188 in the 2000s, a 9 percent increase from 173 in the 1990s.

Minnesota’s B&C staying power is without peer; it posted increases for six straight decades and never once fell from the top 10. Its 193 entries for 2000-09 placed it 10th on the list. It was No. 9 in the 1990s with 168

So in the 1990's MN entered 168 bucks and ALL of the southeast states combined entered 173 bucks.

And in 2000's MN had 193 vs all the southeast's combined at 188.

Two other thoughts

1) A lot of fun, memories, trophies, and venison was enjoyed in the past ten years, no matter what the state and regulations. Here is the total harvest for a few states for 2002-2011.

Iowa 1,400,000 deer killed

Minnesota 2,300,000 deer killed

Mississippi 2,800,000 deer killed

Texas 5,800,000 deer killed

Wisconsin 4,300,000 deer killed

Obviously a lot more to hunting than B&C.

2) Wisconsin produces a lot of B & C bucks while allowing party hunting for bucks and no apr's.

Let's not let the few hairs on the tail of the deer wag the whole deer

lakevet

[Bear55]

Who cares really ?

True that, I don't know anyone holding out for a booner. Just more of the same QDM stuff and getting some older bucks in the woods.

[Musky Buck]

Right on Bear, can I rephrase some of my mess by simply saying yes I'd like a better chance here in MN at larger bucks like I used to have in the 80's. Think back to your 1st season as a gun hunter, relive that experience and then move on from it that times have changed, our landscape has changed, people have changed, and old zone 4 has really changed even our hunting weather seems to have changed. In years in our farmland area when the bucks get whacked really hard it takes time to recover, hope is free and that's what we'll all have on November 3rd. I've seen 1 Boone buck in 1984 while hunting, that to me was a success, that's the 1 I'll never forget even though I didn't fire at him.

[Getanet]

Then this comparative look at 2005-10 versus a 1980-1985 look)

1. Wisconsin, 383 entries (1980-1985 rank 3rd, 40 entries)

2. Illinois, 299 entries (1980-1985 rank 6th, 30 entries)

3. Iowa, 224 entries (1980-1985 rank 2nd, 59 entries)

4. Ohio, 215 entries (1980-1985 rank 14th, 16 entries)

5. Missouri, 214 entries (1980-1985 rank 9th (tie), 25 entries)

6. Kentucky, 199 entries (1980-1985 rank 9th (tie), 25 entries)

7. Indiana, 195 entries (1980-1985 rank 16th, 14 entries)

8. Kansas, 181 entries (1980-1985 rank 4th, 35 entries)

9. Minnesota, 172 entries (1980-1985 rank 1st, 76 entries)

10. Saskatchewan, 147 entries (1980-1985 rank 7th (tie), 27 entries)

So, for Minnesota:

#1 from 1980-1985

#4 from 1980-2001

#9 from 2005-2010

Those are interesting stats. Thanks for sharing them. I guess there are two ways of looking at the comparisons:

A) One could argue we're doing worse because we were #1 from 1980-1985 and dropped to #9 from 2005-2010.

Or

One could argue that we might be #9 from 2005-2010, but we had 172 entries compared to 76 when we were number #1. That's more than a 200% increase.

If you're going to use B&C entries as the basis for evaluating the quality of MN's hunting, I don't know how you can come to any other conclusion that the hunting today is far superior than it was 20-30 years ago - regardless of where we rank compared to other states.

[96trigger]

It is a lot more trendy to enter your deer in the books now than it ever was, so more people are entering them. However, Boone and Crocket entries will always be misleading unless 100% of the deer that make the record books, get recorded.

I consider it useless data, fun to look at though.

[slimngrizzly]

With the multi-buck all-season licenses, and all the options, and guys in the woods nowdays... Id like to know the # of "hunter hours" per/ B&C (or P&Y) compared to 20 or 30 years ago. I would bet it has not gotten better.

Now we have 170 huge deer in MN that after everyone and their brother hunt bow, a 16 day gun season, and a 16 day muzzleloader season finally get shot. 30 years ago, there was 76 guys lucky enough to get big ones in the 2 or 4 days they got to hunt. The seasons and the pressure is SO MUCH different now.

[Getanet]

I consider it useless data, fun to look at though.

I agree.

[Scott K]

I agree as well. If I was to shoot a huge deer, I dont know I would care to enter it. To me, it just wouldnt matter.

[HunterLee]

The two quickest ways to get big bucks back in my area is to go back to slugs and pick ONE firearm season. Also go back to the 2 and 4 days season.

I would love it to be moved back a week or two and have some type of antler restriction, but not as important as the first two.

Rifles have really hurt the bigger buck population in my area, and in the wide open areas have really hurt the deer population. At least with slugs you couldn't pop them at a 1/4 mile or worse yet road hunting has increased a lot to.

Hunter Choice is a good thing also, takes some pressure off the small bucks, but we are lottery so they will get murdered again this year.

Now that we have the 9 days and rifles it is harder than ever to find a spot to hunt, unless you have friends or realitives. And everybody just sits around with very little pushing the deer around like it used to be.

[matchset]

Minnesota.

Minnesota’s B&C staying power is without peer; it posted increases for six straight decades and never once fell from the top 10.

Its 193 entries for 2000-09 placed it 10th on the list.

It was No. 9 in the 1990s with 168,

No. 1 in the 1980s with 142,

No. 1 in the 1970s with 138,

No. 1 in the 1960s with 94

No. 1 in the 1950s with 53.

We were NUMBER 1 for 40yrs straight.... and now we are number 10! Even Vince Lombardi would be fired for that kind of performance....

i'd say we're hangin on my the skin of our teeth.

[Stratosman]

I would totally be in favor of moving the gun season back to mirror WI's... no doubt, but I would be surprised if it ever happened. THe argument will be too much tradition and this and that...

I can see both sides of the argument, I choose to pass younger deer, don't care what anyone else shoots. I do like the APR's in zone 3 along with the no cross tagging rule. I hunt in both 2 and 3 and way more mature deer on camera in zone 3 than 4, pretty much the same terrain as well.

[deerminator]

I'm not sure we'll ever really be #1 again no matter what we do. And does it really matter so long as we make the most of what we have?

Could it be a matter of the other states that have surpassed us realized what they had in their own state and tried to improve upon it? So while our entries have been rising, so have their's but at a much faster pace.

Bear mentioned Wisconsin's superior habitat and I remember an article in Oudoor News where Mr. C from the DNR outlined the differences between the habitat in the two states. So while Minnesota has really good habitat, Wisconsin has great habitat. That can't be changed. I believe I read somewhere that Iowa has fewer hunters, less pressure, and more deer per the hunters they do have which is part of their success. We can't replicate that here unless we limit the number of hunters.

But we could change other things like moving the gun hunt til after the rut. Or preventing cross-tagging or very minimal APR rules. Most of the articles I've read on hunting regulations in the past say states set seasons, rules and bag limits mainly on social preferences or rather the number of deer and size of bucks hunters want to see and the time they want to hunt them. Maybe a good solution would be to ask all deer hunters a few simple questions when they buy their licenses and make some changes based on that.

[Coach1310]

My unscientific thoughts.

#1- The pressure on deer is way different that it was years ago.

#2- The timing of the season will not change unless surrounding states change so there isn't a big overlap. The DNR needs the non resident revenue and by moving the season you risk losing resident hunters as well.

#3- We will never be able to compete with the likes of Iowa. WAY too much open space and habitat with little pressure in Iowa for MN to compare. We also have a bunch of land that grows nice deer, but not filled with corn and grain that grows them bigger and faster like Iowa.

#4- If we were able to convince all hunters in MN to pass on anything below 140" we would have a lot more B & C bucks, HOWEVER, it still takes genes and not all bucks can grow to be booners AND if 5 out of 10 guys are shooting Booners is it really that special trophy to everyone??

Lastly, one thing I wonder, is in places like Kansas you have an early Muzzy hunt. Isn't patterning a deer much easier in early September than hoping he runs by you during the rut in November??? Just a thought.

[slimngrizzly]

Id completely agree with #1 and #2

And Id completely disagree with #3 and #4