APR 2013?

[tfran123]

Pulled his lower jaw, so yes and do it with all my deer.

[picksbigwagon]

Okay, I will enter into this forray, even though the same arguments are being made over and over and over and over and over and over and....

The DNR looks at the overall deer density of the state correct? Simply biology tells us that if we start stacking more animals on that land that has a specific capicity for healthy deer, why then do we want to throw that number out of whack by allowing an age and gender group to be untouched? Will that not increase the population? Will this increase in population have a negative affect on the herd? (yes it will) So when the negative impact on the area's carrying capicity is felt, the answer is to shoot more doe's? Which could conceivably crash an entire population since does need to mature to have off spring.....

When I see terms like: "More Balanced age structure" I want to see statistics of current age structure in MN.....Heck, any state that borders us! "We need older bucks" to me reads "We need bigger antlers" and to say differently is a lie, you know it, we know it!

For the past five years, I have been moderating this forum and yes, I have changed my opinion on this topic (hmm, I think I mentioned this on page 3 or something like that, and I feel many others on this site have as well. I agree letting the little ones walk is a good plan, but I fail to see the need for legistlation. For those wanting more state wide legislation, or as Smellessox said above "no one expects it to be like a Highly Managed game farm in Iowa" that is exactly what you want, a highly managed game farm of immense proportions.

I have let this "discussion" go this fall because I realize that if I shut it down, it will pop up over and over and over and over and over and over and......There comes a time when we need to realize that opinions sometimes change, sometimes they don't

[B. Amish]

Hard to do when some groups of people go into an area and cull the majority of the young bucks. What's so hard for you to understand, you seem like you should grasp this stuff?...

...Try and see the bigger picture and don't paint everyone with the same broad brush.

[tfran123]

The vast majority of our buck harvest is comprised of 1.5 year old deer, that is fact. Nobody should say that most of the 1.5's are shot, that data is not available so you are correct.

[tfran123]

Wanted to see if the icon made me feel cute or funny, nope.

[picksbigwagon]

The vast majority of our buck harvest is comprised of 1.5 year old deer, that is fact. Nobody should say that most of the 1.5's are shot, that data is not available so you are correct.

even I realize the necessity of a link for the study that came to this conclussion from the DNR

[muskiemanAD]

I have seen the little gif of a horse getting beat with a stick. Someone put that up and end this thread. Kind of like trying to convert someone to your political party, it ain't happening.....

[TruthWalleyes]

TW, why should you have to drive 2 hours, or apply for a special hunt, or go to the SE, or go out of state to find a big deer? At least you are admitting that there is a lack of big deer in many areas.

Read long post on previous page.

I travel to those two areas. SE & SW mn because I have plentiful private land opportunities in both areas. Friends in one direction. Family in the other. I do save my buck tag for a mature deer. Don't ask anyone else to though.

Haven't tagged a buck in many years... I like does but will shoot a mature buck if the opportunity presents itself with a 100% kill shot.

[mntatonka]

The vast majority of our buck harvest is comprised of 1.5 year old deer, that is fact. Nobody should say that most of the 1.5's are shot, that data is not available so you are correct.

You contradicted yourself in two sentences. First you say the majority of our buck harvest is 1.5 year old deer, and then you say no one should say that most of the 1.5's are shot because the data isn't available. Which is it?

Post the study that suggests we shoot a majority of 1.5's, and I'll point out that it was based on a tiny sample size of a limited hunt. It may very well be a fact that the majority of our statewide harvest is 1.5 year old deer, but there's no data to prove such a claim. Our only large amount of data has 4 categories: females, males, fawn female, and fawn male.

[SmellEsox]

I think it is very possible in heavily hunted areas to have 90+% of yearling and 2.5 year old bucks killed every year. How many mature bucks per square mile do you think there are in MN? In my area there are typically 10-12 deer per sq. mile pre-fawn. How many of those are 3.5 year old or older bucks on average?

[tfran123]

Not perfect but do read, this is PA, you'll note hunters were killing 80% of the bucks (majority were yearlings) prior to APR.

http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/ser...13_20090806_pdf

Doubt we are that different in non APR areas.

[tfran123]

Slow down and read it again, no I didn't contradict myself.

[mntatonka]

Not perfect but do read, this is PA, you'll note hunters were killing 80% of the bucks (majority were yearlings) prior to APR.

http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/ser...13_20090806_pdf

Doubt we are that different in non APR areas.

And yet there's not even data to back up their 80% claim other than on "hundreds of collared deer". Not exactly a large sample size. I don't believe Pennsylvania takes any data regarding age of deer harvested either. Not to mention their entire goal was for large buck production, not to reduce antlerless population the way Minnesota's was designed.

[Getanet]

I can't find the 2012 Deer Harvest Report, but in 2011 no zone had a hunter success rate for legal bucks over 17.3%. I find it hard to believe that 90% of anything is getting killed each year.

[tfran123]

If you hate the concept you'll just continue to see it your way. Google is your friend and if you are interested the data is out there.

[mntatonka]

I can't find the 2012 Deer Harvest Report, but in 2011 no zone had a hunter success rate for legal bucks over 17.3%. I find it hard to believe that 90% of anything is getting killed each year.

no no no, now the words have changed from "majority of yearlings are getting killed" to "majority of our harvest is yearlings". So that means that only about 2% of all hunters harvested a buck that was older than 1.5 years. Those other 15% of hunters that harvested a buck shot one that was 1.5 or younger. Again though, those numbers are based on their claim that the majority of the buck harvest is yearlings, so I'm using a straight 90% for that just to prove a large majority.

[mntatonka]

If you hate the concept you'll just continue to see it your way. Google is your friend and if you are interested the data is out there.

I don't hate the concept, it works in some situations. However, I do hate the fact that it was pushed as a population reducing tool, and that it was pushed through based on a flawed study and loaded survey questions. It certainly didn't lower the population in Zone 3, judging by the much higher reports of crop damage. That tells me it didn't work as intended, and should be scrapped for a new plan.

[Getanet]

If you hate the concept you'll just continue to see it your way. Google is your friend and if you are interested the data is out there.

Trust me, I've looked high and low to find any definitive information on the percent of 1.5 year old bucks that get shot in MN. Not conjecture, not the QDMA "report," not guys pulling the stats out of thin air.

If you can post a link where the MN DNR claims X% of yearling bucks get shot each year in MN I will donate $20 to whatever charity you like.

[tfran123]

Non APR registration point in Michigan, would likely be similar here:

1996 – 3,790 bucks – 76% yearlings

1997 – 3,374 bucks – 73% yearlings

1998 – 2,913 bucks – 71% yearlings

1999 – 2,934 bucks – 73% yearlings

2000 – 5,174 bucks – 74% yearlings

2001 – 4,917 bucks – 73% yearlings

2002 – 6,518 bucks – 71% yearlings

2003 – 6,954 bucks – 73% yearlings

2004 – 6,680 bucks – 73% yearlings

2005 – 6,129 bucks – 68% yearlings

2006 – 6,902 bucks – 71% yearlings

2007 – 7,271 bucks – 69% yearlings

2008 - 7,424 bucks - 70% yearlings

That my friends is a large majority. Do the math and tell me how hunting isn't culling bucks prematurely and lowering the chances for deer to mature?

[mntatonka]

Non APR registration point in Michigan, would likely be similar here:

1996 – 3,790 bucks – 76% yearlings

1997 – 3,374 bucks – 73% yearlings

1998 – 2,913 bucks – 71% yearlings

1999 – 2,934 bucks – 73% yearlings

2000 – 5,174 bucks – 74% yearlings

2001 – 4,917 bucks – 73% yearlings

2002 – 6,518 bucks – 71% yearlings

2003 – 6,954 bucks – 73% yearlings

2004 – 6,680 bucks – 73% yearlings

2005 – 6,129 bucks – 68% yearlings

2006 – 6,902 bucks – 71% yearlings

2007 – 7,271 bucks – 69% yearlings

2008 - 7,424 bucks - 70% yearlings

That my friends is a large majority. Do the math and tell me how hunting isn't culling bucks prematurely and lowering the chances for deer to mature?

Where's the link? And how do they take the age? And when will you show something with Minnesota saying with proof that the majority of the yearlings are harvested?

[TruthWalleyes]

If we wanted to collect data on age of male deer harvested, what would be the best method of doing so?

Registering antler points?

[tfran123]

Link: http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=327052

I'm sure you thought I just made those numbers up.

Didn't say they did it in MN, but the result will be similar. Again, if you want to be narrow minded you'll never see the other side. I'm done doing research for you but feel free as I have 25 other links that all say the same thing, different states and guess what? All the same the result. About 60%-70% of all bucks shot are yearlings, no reason we are any different here in this fine state.

[BRULEDRIFTER]

Again, if you want to be narrow minded you'll never see the other side.

That statement goes both ways.....

[Scott K]

If 60-70% of bucks taken are 1.5yo, that would tell me a couple things, 30-40% are older then that, which is about 1/3 or more. And if the majority (60-70%) are 1.5yo, that tells me that 1.5yo are the majority in the woods, so that would explain why that age class is taken more. 30-40% of bucks taken are mature, that seems like a decent ratio if you ask me.

If I relate theat into fishing, I would say 60-70% of walleyes taken are 15-19 inches, and the rest are over 20inches, that sounds like a dream scenario for fishing. But for hunting, it isnt good enough for the antler hunters. Dohkay

[TruthWalleyes]

Also tells me the MAJORITY are OK with out horn P*rn