APR 2013?

[tfran123]

Ok you go ahead and believe that there are plenty of mature bucks, go to another state like IA or KS, heck parts of IL. But for fun lets play your game and while doing so disregard the "buttons" they aren't legal bucks.

60:40 ratio on does to yearling and above bucks? Nope, not even close. So start doing math and assume a lower buck number while still assuming we have 1m deer, doesn't take long to figure a 75-85k buck harvest makes a big impact. In 2011 we harvested 75k bucks, so I'm not pulling that number out of the sky. Sure we aren't killing them all, not even close but we're making a huge imbalance, no doubt.

Go buy some trail cams and see for yourself. Talk to the DNR, just go educate yourself on other states harvest stats. This stuff isn't hard unless you believe people are trying to deceive you.

[Bear55]

Let’s say it’s 100%. All you’re talking about is harvest, not how many remain in the population. Across all zones and weapon types, only 17.2% of hunters shot a legal buck in 2011, 19.3% in 2009 (I couldn’t find reports for 2012 or 2010). To put that another way, more than 8 out of 10 hunters in the state don’t shoot a legal buck in MN in a typical year. Any way you want to crunch the numbers, the majority of bucks don’t get shot in MN. And if the percentage of yearlings are as high as folks claim, once a buck makes it through the first 1.5 years his chances of dying at the hands of a hunter are very low.

I think this is a fair assessment, there are a decent amout of bucks out there but we still don't know for sure how many of what age class make it. If you totally up all the bucks yes there is a sizable number there. However if you look at a single age class of bucks over the course of 5-6 years I think you see the number drop off drastically.

The first three hunting seasons (fawns, 1.5 and 2.5) they get pounded pretty good. More so at 1 and 2 but plenty of fawns get taken out by accident. By 3.5 they are just starting to wise up and get mature but still make a few mistakes and get a little dumb during the rut. Now that just covers us gun and bow hunters. A lot of the deer in those age classes get taken out by cars, wolves, winter, disease and just plain old exhaustion from the rut and maybe a few freak accidents.

Now the big question is how many of a single age class make it to 4,5,6 years old? I have no clue but I wish someone could do some kind of mega study and find out. DNR if you are listening and want to hire me for a 25 year study I am game.

Would be cool to see the numbers from the 4 corners of the state, also comparing public to private land would be interesting.

[Scott K]

Nope, no proven data on the harvest of yearlings every year. I don't need it. I can just go to a gas station on Sunday/ Monday opening weekend and the two following Sundays and open my eyes. A huge majority of bucks in trailers and trucks are yearlings. Don't need to waste hunters money it's obvious.

If this is the case, then it tells me the majority of hunters dont approve of APR, if they did, they would be practicing it

[B. Amish]

Go buy some trail cams and see for yourself. Talk to the DNR, just go educate yourself on other states harvest stats. This stuff isn't hard unless you believe people are trying to deceive you.

been running t-cams for 10 years. pictures tell me that when i'm hunting i may see only 10% of the actual bucks i get on camera.

[mntatonka]

Ok you go ahead and believe that there are plenty of mature bucks, go to another state like IA or KS, heck parts of IL. But for fun lets play your game and while doing so disregard the "buttons" they aren't legal bucks.

60:40 ratio on does to yearling and above bucks? Nope, not even close. So start doing math and assume a lower buck number while still assuming we have 1m deer, doesn't take long to figure a 75-85k buck harvest makes a big impact. In 2011 we harvested 75k bucks, so I'm not pulling that number out of the sky. Sure we aren't killing them all, not even close but we're making a huge imbalance, no doubt.

Go buy some trail cams and see for yourself. Talk to the DNR, just go educate yourself on other states harvest stats. This stuff isn't hard unless you believe people are trying to deceive you.

I talk to the local DNR area wildlife managers on a fairly regular basis, and none of them like APR. It limits how they can manage the herd in their areas. Not that it really matters, since their bosses don't listen to them in the first place.

[Scott K]

Again, you want bigger bucks? Stop shooting the bigger bucks, then the woods will be full of them. But as soon as they get mature, you APR guys go out and target them. Let them live until they naturally die, then you will see a lot more mature bucks, and more of a balanced herd in the woods. They should have an antler restriction, anything over 4 points per side, is off limits, then the woods would have many more big bucks. Then everyone will be happy.

You APR guys keep contradicting yourselves, first you say everyone shoots all of the small deer, then you say the woods is full of nothing but small deer, and there is hardly any big deer. Which is it? If all the small deer are being shot, then the woods wouldnt be full of them.

[SmellEsox]

If 80% of our bucks didn't get shot, no one would be complaining about a lack of big bucks. First of all, how many of those 1 million deer are fawns? Also, the age structure is much different in the SE and NE. These areas have less hunting pressure and better age structure. Areas of high hunter density could easily have yearling buck harvest rates higher than 65-70%. As I've said many times, pre-fawn deer densities in central MN are in the 10-12 range. Most of these are yearling deer that survived the last hunting season. I just don't see how you are going to stockpile bucks when you harvest 4-5 deer per square mile in these types of areas. Tack on other mortality factors and the number of bucks surviving to even 2.5 y.o. are slim. If 80% of bucks survived past 1.5, we'd be seeing them all over the place.

[tfran123]

Again, you want bigger bucks? Stop shooting the bigger bucks, then the woods will be full of them. But as soon as they get mature, you APR guys go out and target them. Let them live until they naturally die, then you will see a lot more mature bucks, and more of a balanced herd in the woods. They should have an antler restriction, anything over 4 points per side, is off limits, then the woods would have many more big bucks. Then everyone will be happy.

You APR guys keep contradicting yourselves, first you say everyone shoots all of the small deer, then you say the woods is full of nothing but small deer, and there is hardly any big deer. Which is it? If all the small deer are being shot, then the woods wouldnt be full of them.

Everyone targets them, don't kid yourself. In a corner again, please try again.

[SmellEsox]

I'm really trying to figure out your logic there Scott, and I just can't for the life of me make sense out of it. So you are saying the main limiting factor for big bucks is guys shooting big bucks? I think the main limiting factor is the number making it to maturity, not the harvest of mature bucks. And we want more big bucks so we might actually get a crack at one during hunting season, not to just have them there. That is like meat guy saying if I want more meat, I better not shoot anything. Then there'd be more meat in the woods. Right????

[96trigger]

Quote:

You APR guys keep contradicting yourselves, first you say everyone shoots all of the small deer, then you say the woods is full of nothing but small deer, and there is hardly any big deer. Which is it? If all the small deer are being shot, then the woods wouldnt be full of them.

I'm not a rocket scientist, but every year, we get new small deer. It's called a renewable resource. Therefore, we can still have a woods full of small deer, shoot said small deer, and still have small deer again the next year.

[tfran123]

If 80% of our bucks didn't get shot, no one would be complaining about a lack of big bucks. First of all, how many of those 1 million deer are fawns? Also, the age structure is much different in the SE and NE. These areas have less hunting pressure and better age structure. Areas of high hunter density could easily have yearling buck harvest rates higher than 65-70%. As I've said many times, pre-fawn deer densities in central MN are in the 10-12 range. Most of these are yearling deer that survived the last hunting season. I just don't see how you are going to stockpile bucks when you harvest 4-5 deer per square mile in these types of areas. Tack on other mortality factors and the number of bucks surviving to even 2.5 y.o. are slim. If 80% of bucks survived past 1.5, we'd be seeing them all over the place.

You get it and couldn't agree more.

[Getanet]

If 80% of bucks survived past 1.5, we'd be seeing them all over the place.

Obviously it's impossible to pinpoint the exact figure. But below are the hunter success rates for a legal buck in 2011 and 2009. Do any of the numbers seem so high that we're decimating the buck population to the point laws should be enacted limit opportunity for any particular group of hunters? These success rates look relatively modest to me, which would indicate there are plenty of bucks - across a range of age ranges - across the state:

2011

Zone 1 = 17.3%

Zone 2 = 16.8%

Zone 3A = 16.9%

Zone 3B = 6.5%

Muzzleloader = 4.0%

Archery = 6.8%

2009

Zone 1 = 19.7%

Zone 2 = 18.7%

Zone 3A =25%

Zone 3B = 10.9%

Muzzleloader = 4.5%

Archery = 7.7%

[Scott K]

and I dont see what your fascination is with big antlers. I could care less about big antlers. If you want to sport hunt, buy Cabela's Big game hunt. Hunting is about food. Would I pass up a big buck? No, but I wouldnt pass up a 150 pound basket 6 either. I personally dont shoot yearlings, but I dont look down onto people who do. I am actually a little selective in my hunting, even though I am against APR 100%. I think it ought to be up to the hunter, in what they are happy to shoot. I hunt a 9 day season in Wisconsin, days 1-5, I am letting a lot more deer walk by, days 6-8 I am not as fussy, day 9, depending with what is hanging already, if there isnt much meat hanging, I will shoot any non yearling at that point. So I am to a degree selective, until I am running out of time. But it is my preference, not what someone else wants me to shoot.

I also bow hunt, and I have a personal rule, no doe's with fawns, nor will I take a small buck, until late season. Again, my choice, someone isnt telling me how to hunt. I honestly dont care what is on its head. I have eaten many tag soups before, because I too have passed on deer early season, in hopes for the right deer, and by that, its more about body size, then antler size. Typically 150lbs+ is a go, 140lb minimum. Nothing about what is on its head.

I'm really trying to figure out your logic there Scott, and I just can't for the life of me make sense out of it. So you are saying the main limiting factor for big bucks is guys shooting big bucks? I think the main limiting factor is the number making it to maturity, not the harvest of mature bucks. And we want more big bucks so we might actually get a crack at one during hunting season, not to just have them there. That is like meat guy saying if I want more meat, I better not shoot anything. Then there'd be more meat in the woods. Right????

[tfran123]

Means nothing, the only thing that matters is our population metrics which we both admit are not available. If we had 1.5m hunters we'd be out of deer with the success rates posted. The key is what is the deer population, and we'll agree to disagree that we have an ample supply of mature animals, sans what we are stating to see in Z3.

[Musky Buck]

I just don't like how as every field and woods are full of stands and now the DNR decides forget zone 4, lets let em all muzzleload, lets allow em to gun hunt for 25 days instead of 2 or 4 talking the farmland zone of old. I didn't need to be a fan of go grow or APR or any of it because plenty of nice deer made it through such a short season for all of us to pursue the next year, even bow hunting has taken off big time and unfortunately many of the guys I know the last thing they want to do is burn their buck tag with a bow before the gun season. The same happens during rifle, use up the tags of guys who only are in it for opening weekend, saving a late bow or muzzleloader chance for the other guys in the party. My theory is you let the antlerless people or any buck have the first 4 days of the gun season and APR/bucks only hunters can have all 9 days. You make the choice. Thin some pressure off these nocturnal goats lol. All should be fairly happy maybe ? Maybe my dad would come out of retirement and hunt again, he said it sickens him to see his land completely surrounded by hunters for 25 days pounding any deer that walks, says he's too old to sell and move on, so he made the choice to live off the glory days of the late 70's and 80's when it was fun, not the circus of today, he really got dumped on when anyone could muzzy because that was his getting away from the circus, some peace and quiet out there that's what he likes about hunting. November 9th it is, seems like the bow rut guys are pretty quiet about hunting the rut this year lol.

[tfran123]

And I just enjoy killing big catfish, and don't bother telling me to release.

So happy to learn about your hunting practices really and glad to learn hunting is ONLY about food.

[SmellEsox]

Scott, there are lots of guys like me that want more big bucks in the population and eat some venison, and there's lots of guys like you that want meat. The problem is one group has what they want, the other doesn't. There should be room for compromise.

[Scott K]

Your right, the APR guys got their way in Zone 3

[Mo Gator]

Again, you want bigger bucks? Stop shooting the bigger bucks, then the woods will be full of them. But as soon as they get mature, you APR guys go out and target them. Let them live until they naturally die, then you will see a lot more mature bucks, and more of a balanced herd in the woods. They should have an antler restriction, anything over 4 points per side, is off limits, then the woods would have many more big bucks. Then everyone will be happy.

You APR guys keep contradicting yourselves, first you say everyone shoots all of the small deer, then you say the woods is full of nothing but small deer, and there is hardly any big deer. Which is it? If all the small deer are being shot, then the woods wouldnt be full of them.

Wow, you really need to stop posting on this thread, because you have no idea what you are arguing against.

[Getanet]

If we had 1.5m hunters we'd be out of deer with the success rates posted.

Come on now, what I posted wasn't speculation or hyperbole. They are facts. We don't have 1.5m hunters. We know exactly how many licenses are sold - 497,995 in 2011 and 489,096 in 2009. What I posted is the number of legal bucks registered vs. the number of licenses sold in each zone.

I take it you agree these numbers indicate we're not decimating our buck population if the best argument you can make is that if we tripled the number of hunters we acutally have, and kept their success rate the same, it would be bad.

[Scott K]

Wow, you really need to stop posting on this thread, because you have no idea what you are arguing against.

dohkay, because you dont agree with me, that hunting isnt about antlers. Therefore I shouldnt post. How about you APR supporters only shoot what you want to shoot, and us anti APR hunters shoot what we choose to shoot, and stop trying to convince us, that we are less of hunters, because we dont follow your idea of hunting for antlers. Then we can all get along.

[Getanet]

If we had 1.5m hunters we'd be out of deer with the success rates posted.

Come on now, what I posted wasn't speculation or hyperbole. They are facts. We don't have 1.5m hunters. We know exactly how many licenses are sold - 497,995 in 2011 and 489,096 in 2009. What I posted is the number of legal bucks registered vs. the number of licenses sold in each zone.

I take it you agree these numbers indicate we're not decimating our buck population if the best argument you can make is that if we tripled the number of hunters we acutally have, and kept their actual success rate the same, it would be bad.

[tfran123]

Success rates would be way better if we had more bucks, look no further than our neighbor to the south.

[tfran123]

Your posts are all over the map, you hunt for meat (guess it the only reason we should hunt), but yet are selective but then not really, whatever. I liken it to watching a dog chase his tail. Enjoy.

[Bear55]

Come on now, what I posted wasn't speculation or hyperbole. They are facts. We don't have 1.5m hunters. We know exactly how many licenses are sold - 497,995 in 2011 and 489,096 in 2009. What I posted is the number of legal bucks registered vs. the number of licenses sold in each zone.

I take it you agree these numbers indicate we're not decimating our buck population if the best argument you can make is that if we tripled the number of hunters we acutally have, and kept their actual success rate the same, it would be bad.

I will post this again so you have a better idea how low success rates still don't mean there are a ton of older bucks running around. Yes they are out there but not in great numbers.

I think this is a fair assessment, there are a decent amout of bucks out there but we still don't know for sure how many of what age class make it. If you totally up all the bucks yes there is a sizable number there. However if you look at a single age class of bucks over the course of 5-6 years I think you see the number drop off drastically.

The first three hunting seasons (fawns, 1.5 and 2.5) they get pounded pretty good. More so at 1 and 2 but plenty of fawns get taken out by accident. By 3.5 they are just starting to wise up and get mature but still make a few mistakes and get a little dumb during the rut. Now that just covers us gun and bow hunters. A lot of the deer in those age classes get taken out by cars, wolves, winter, disease and just plain old exhaustion from the rut and maybe a few freak accidents.

Now the big question is how many of a single age class make it to 4,5,6 years old? I have no clue but I wish someone could do some kind of mega study and find out. DNR if you are listening and want to hire me for a 25 year study I am game.

Would be cool to see the numbers from the 4 corners of the state, also comparing public to private land would be interesting.