lack of bigger bucks??

[Musky Buck]

In my area Jameson when it was zone 4 landowners worked together a bit more freeing up land to be driven out, if some hunted exclusively the 1st weekend they'd let us drive their land out the 2nd and vice versa kinda or if they were tagged out already or were done. Now some have muzzleloader hunters coming in or a bow hunter who likes to go late. Even sometimes trying to organize everyone and the days are shorter. Deer drives are work to, some would rather forego the sweat involved and just hunker down in the heated box stand. Some realize it can be shouldn't be but dangerous, do you trust your group, does everyone know where each other are etc. If we miss deer etc. we're just sending them to the neighbors who'll roast em so why jump em when we might get em during our evening hunts.

[Jameson]

hmmmmmm...more days for the hunter, either 9 days instead of a weekend, or allowing each of us to hunt all the seasons...leading to folks not wanting to push their land and thus the end of deer drives. It kinda makes sense.

[SmellEsox]

Musky Buck, I'm sure Zone 240 changed because buck harvest in the zone increased from 1588 in 2011 to 1698 in 2012. That is the DNR's signal that deer numbers have increased.

[Fever]

There are many variables to the reason that there are fewer big bucks so the question is hard to answer. I understand the DNR tries to impose limits that will help the overall population. I think, for the most part, these limits are beneficial in certain areas. With improvements in technology, GPS, Google earth, Scope technology, hunting gear from warm comfortable clothes, scents, stands, attractants, food plots, etc - I think the average hunter is far more educated about whitetail behavior that he/she was just 20-30 years ago and basically on average, I think today's hunter is a bit more successful on average. Also, today, hunting for a large racked animal is a bit more in demand than it was 30ish years ago. Evidenced by the very title of this thread. So when there is demand and also a limited supply... what do you have - value of said resource goes up. So... because of this, along with mother natures influence (harsh winter, late spring, drought, predators, disease, and other habitat factors - we do see fewer large racked deer because when they ARE seen, they are not passed. Ever. Frankly, even when a decent 2.5 year old 8 point with nice potential and good genetics is seen - it rarely is passed. But ironically, the guy that doesn't pass on that 8 is the same guy that complains that he never sees the big 10 pointers that he used to see. It is a similar concept of like catching a 4.5 lb largemouth and mounting it and wondering why you never catch a 5 + lb largemouth...

Other states like Iowa, and Wisconsin that have better reputations for larger deer also have less hunting pressure statewide on average and often their gun hunts do not happen during the peak periods of the rut. This is huge imo, as it makes an otherwise very wary old trophy buck more susceptible to daytime movement and hunter contact. Over time - this, imo, has led to fewer numbers of older year class bucks in Mn.

Deer drives (which I used to do and how I started hunting) do not help this issue at all. I don't think doing drives and giving a poster a fraction of a second to decide to shoot or to not shoot at a deer that is literally running for it's life helps us to selectively harvest targeted (mature deer). Rather, I think deer drives are a semi effective way to basically irradiate or massacre and lower populations in certain areas at a certain time. Please, (meat hunters don't take too much offense here) but meat hunters shouldn't be too opinionated in a thread that is aimed at a lack of bigger bucks because you can't eat the head gear. Anyway - I've been very turned off by this due to the kill shots I've seen. 1.5 - 2.5 year old bucks with their faces blown off for example. Or seeing a deer run off about 300 yds out with 3 legs - deer with 4-5 or 6 holes in them and very little harvestable meat left because 2 legs were blown off and the thing was literally crawling on the ground, or worse yet, gut shot deer that aren't recovered only to get away so they can die a painfully slow death. Again... not my thing and is exactly why I now sit all day and usually take one shot per season. Anyway... I know I rambled there but, If you personally want to see bigger bucks - then don't shoot the younger ones. I understand it is a risk in some areas, but our deer will never reach their genetic potential if they are only living to see 1.5,2.5 or 3.5 and that is a fact. The power actually lies in us. Sometimes not pulling the trigger on a young buck with potential and risking a season of tag soup, is harder than actually pulling the trigger on a wall worth stud.

[jentz]

Who's determination is it that there are fewer big Bucks.Then how did you determine your theory?? where was the study done state wide,counties or a 10 acre lot

[mntatonka]

Deer drives (which I used to do and how I started hunting) do not help this issue at all. I don't think doing drives and giving a poster a fraction of a second to decide to shoot or to not shoot at a deer that is literally running for it's life helps us to selectively harvest targeted (mature deer). Rather, I think deer drives are a semi effective way to basically irradiate or massacre and lower populations in certain areas at a certain time. Please, (meat hunters don't take too much offense here) but meat hunters shouldn't be too opinionated in a thread that is aimed at a lack of bigger bucks because you can't eat the head gear. Anyway - I've been very turned off by this due to the kill shots I've seen. 1.5 - 2.5 year old bucks with their faces blown off for example. Or seeing a deer run off about 300 yds out with 3 legs - deer with 4-5 or 6 holes in them and very little harvestable meat left because 2 legs were blown off and the thing was literally crawling on the ground, or worse yet, gut shot deer that aren't recovered only to get away so they can die a painfully slow death. Again... not my thing and is exactly why I now sit all day and usually take one shot per season. Anyway... I know I rambled there but, If you personally want to see bigger bucks - then don't shoot the younger ones. I understand it is a risk in some areas, but our deer will never reach their genetic potential if they are only living to see 1.5,2.5 or 3.5 and that is a fact. The power actually lies in us. Sometimes not pulling the trigger on a young buck with potential and risking a season of tag soup, is harder than actually pulling the trigger on a wall worth stud.

A well executed deer drive keeps the deer from running full speed in any part of the drive, whether it be through the standers or back through the drivers. We rarely have deer busting through the standers, usually they stop and look back towards the drivers, having no idea the standers are there. Most of the time, the standers (that are quiet) could literally have 5 to 10 minutes to watch a deer before deciding to shoot it, and that's in areas where we can only see about 50 yards on average.

It's all a matter of knowing where the deer move through the area you're hunting, and what their tendencies are in those spots. There's a reason we put standers where we do, and it's always because the deer stop near those spots and look back to see what the heck that stomping racket coming through the woods is.

[Fever]

This is a good question ^ I'm assuming that it is a generalization based on observation over time... but I'm assuming.

I didn't even consider attempting to answer that in my response. In fact in my specific hunting area, I don't think there is a shortage of bigger bucks at all, but I also hunt in an area that is low on pressure and high on thick wooded acreage and low on human population / pressure.

[Wanderer]

Wow. It sounds like you guys up there have a lot of bucks running around to see that many in that short of a time period and that tame that they would keep coming as you shoot.That is certainly a higher number of Bucks than I can ever remember seeing even when I lived in the northwoods of Sconnie.

You missed the information in my post like you were using a 30-30 to take out a 1000 yard target...

And yes, I was stand hunting like I do most of the time.

[Musky Buck]

Was just taking a shot at it Jameson, at least with all my relatives in old zone 4 we did way more drives when it was zone 4, we were also younger lol, think the thinking some is why drive em when you have 9 days and 18 sits to get em. Then muzzleload em if you eat that rifle tag, really for us we just got older and didn't have access to the lands we used to that were good and driveable and never messed up our home base stands for AM's and PM sits. Will never forget kicking up a double drop tine monster once, mercy he was huge and Frosty ask your father in law about that beast.

[mntatonka]

and didn't have access to the lands we used to that were good and driveable

this is the biggest problem that's happening in Minnesota, loss of hunting lands.

[candiru]

this is the biggest problem that's happening in Minnesota, loss of hunting lands.

And more big bucks running around will only make this problem worse.

[Musky Buck]

Candiru 99% of Ottertail county is tied up already, more or less big bucks isn't changing that, the 1% is in the city limits anyway lol. Another deer drive theory is it used to be much colder during rifle season and you could count on snow by 2nd weekend in old zone 4, that isn't the case anymore, just ask the EPP geese at Laq Qui Parle why they show up a month later than they used to, but people often didn't have the gourmet box stands of today, people got cold and it was a great way to warm up, we'd fight over being a driver vs. the shooter. With the equipment available people can get materials way the heck back in there where you used to only see extravagant stands in fields or on the edges because it was easy to get the materials there. So I wouldn't want to give up a cozy stand like that either to sweat like a dog pushing thru thorns and wet nasty jungles lol. Let others do it.

[candiru]

We do have much better clothing than we did years ago. Boots, hats, gloves, suits, underwear, disposable hand/footwarmers......etc..... make sitting all day no problem. We also have an aging population of hunters.

When it comes to land, if an area becomes a destination for big bucks the money will follow. There is no guarantee that the friend/relative whose land your hunting will turn down a big-money offer to lease that land. I own land myself and if enough money came along I would probably give up the deer hunting, buy a side of beef and go fishing. Maybe take an elk or moose trip once in a while. The couple of friends that hunt with me would be SOL.

[fr0sty]

Will never forget kicking up a double drop tine monster once, mercy he was huge and Frosty ask your father in law about that beast.

Will do. I haven't heard that story. Sounds like a monster...

[InTheNorthwoods]

Quote:

this is the biggest problem that's happening in Minnesota, loss of hunting lands.

And more big bucks running around will only make this problem worse.

This cuts both ways. If a majority of people think public lands (or private lands accessible to hunters) are not putting out enough deer (i.e. fulfilling expectations of hunters), more people are going to be driven to buy land or otherwise tie up land that was once accessible to others because they "want to take the issue into their own hands."

I'd say this problem is just as bad in our current state as it would be if we all of the sudden became a whitetail destination.

Another consideration is that Minnesota has a LOT more public land than many of the surrounding big buck states, meaning the "leasing up/buying up" of property issue is not going to be as bad as in other areas, if it is any worse than it is right now. In fact, I'd guess that some areas would see a "freeing up" of availability of some lands if we saw improvements with the deer herd on a statewide level.

[Wanderer]

When it comes to land, if an area becomes a destination for big bucks the money will follow. There is no guarantee that the friend/relative whose land your hunting will turn down a big-money offer to lease that land. I own land myself and if enough money came along I would probably give up the deer hunting, buy a side of beef and go fishing. Maybe take an elk or moose trip once in a while. The couple of friends that hunt with me would be SOL.

The money issue has been increasing for years and will never stop as long as demand is there. SEMN is already known as MNs "Big Buck" country plus the bluff areas are just beautiful. People from out of state are already buying up the bigger parcels of property and old farmsteads for their second/retirement home.

Back when we first started hunting the SE, we took land access for granted. The old farmers didn't hunt much and if family was coming for gun season, they figured there were enough deer to go around and they wouldn't mind seeing a few more killed anyway.

What's happening now is the old farmsteads are changing hands due to the ol timers passing away or moving into assisted living. Either the farm gets sold or the kids take it over if they have an interest. Either way, guest hunters are getting squeezed out constantly (this isn't limited to SEMN). People who drop $350-500,000 on a chunk of land do it for themselves and have no interest in letting Joe Blow take advantage of the property for free. And often IF the kids have an interest in the farm, its because they hunt and want their own piece OR want to generate some revenue so they lease it. I've seen land leased to the corporate farms for the tillable but also have a contingency to not allow hunting.

Liability is usually the scapegoat but I really think as our population increases and demand continues to rise, people are just getting more protective of their assets for privacy reasons and are just less and less tolerant of outsiders "using" their stuff or just generally being around. Access is getting fickle.

For the carrying cost of land these days, it doesn't make sense to buy it just for hunting when you can travel, see new country and hunt different things for less money. Granted you don't get the investment benefits but you only get one go 'round and can either make most of your hunting memories on the same 80-250 acres or make memories travelling to the prairies, mountains, deep north woods, tundra, or African plains.

I guess that's my ramble contribution. I don't know if it beats Musky Bucks ramble of the year though!

[laker1]

Time flies,but 50 years ago it was somewhat rare to see posted land. Now its the exception if it is not posted. Also were talking the doubling of hunters. Some talk about were losing are hunting base,but really I think we are at the saturation point in the number of hunters you want in the state with any quality left.

Hunters have become stand sitters more than ever because it is safer and very few areas left you can walk around and not bump in to other hunters.

[lungdeflator]

Well back on track here....bucks have started showing up. At least out in ND. The last two weeks I've gotten more pics/video of bucks then all summer and early fall. Had a decent 8pt into 60yards last night. Good time to be in the woods.

I think there's bigger bucks out there still, maybe just a little less then last yr because of weather or whatever. At least in ND I just don't think I ever found them early.

[Musky Buck]

Not even close Wanderer and like your name states I wander lol, speaking of big bucks and wandering went to my 7th and 8th stand sights yesterday and low and behold there is 1 big buck to hunt, found serious tree rubs on the back edge of standing corn/river area. 2 large pines were really worked over, hope to see that guy or another.