Gun season in peak of rut

[deerminator]

Not that it matters, but are you using a scope during gun season with your ML? If so, that does not surprise me at all. So long as you can hit your target consistently, nothing unethical about that.

[TruthWalleyes]

Not that it matters, but are you using a scope during gun season with your ML? If so, that does not surprise me at all. So long as you can hit your target consistently, nothing unethical about that.

Exactly. Yes of course a scope is being used. How else can you hit a target 300 yards out.

[totally_addicted]

So which is it?

[PurpleFloyd]

"You will then see the doe or qualifying buck that will also put that meat in your freezer. "

Does that answer your question?

So you are saying that Everyone who wants a deer in the freezer can take a doe, button buck or fawn as long as they let the fork- 7 pointers go? Seems to me if I want to harvest a doe around here then I also need to be lucky enough to be chosen in the lottery and that is usually a 50/50 proposition at best.

[Jameson]

If accuracy has already been proven through practice then what's unethical about it?

Does the bullet still have enough power left in it at that range? I am a ballistics moron so this is a real question.

[hockeybc69]

Heres some data on that... out to 250.... It must be a 99%er at 300 with these numbers. LOLLL

[RangerJack]

Does the bullet still have enough power left in it at that range? I am a ballistics moron so this is a real question.

x2

[nonteepical]

as long as it breaks the paper.

[TruthWalleyes]

Right through the paper .. and then through the 1/2 " plywood behind it.

That is a powerbelt table BTW. I'm shooting Barnes

I can show you my ballistics chart that is taped to my gun strap.

I'm zerod at 200. Most would zero at 100 which would have toomuch drop at longer distances.

I guess if I'm given the opportunity we'll find out if it has the kinetic power at 300.

Banter away

[TruthWalleyes]

Oh and which one of you Na Sayers actually shoots a black powder with a scope?

At what distances have you shot it?

What bullets did you use?

Or are you just feeling smart behind a keyboard?

I realize we're in an APR thread so no real evidence is needed to think someone else is doing something stupid. WHich is why nothing said here has in one bit reduced my confidence in my 50-300yd shot.

BTW - how many deer have you archery hunters either missed, or wounded over your lifetime?

[honker23]

Gun season in peak of rut without APR places the young bucks on a chopping block.

Open walleye/pike season Apr 1st with no slot limits, would place the large females on a chopping block.

A July goose hunt would place a lot of young geese on the chopping block.

An August pheasant hunt would place a lot of young birds on the chopping block.

When individuals have been given the opportunity to make decisions on harvest, history shows us a pretty poor track record. Some people abuse this opportunity which leads to increased regulations to ensure protection of our resources. Thats what I think adding APR to the rut hunt in MN would do. Its not about my horn infatuation or mandating my agenda on others. Move the hunt to Dec 5th or keep it in the rut and add APRs.

[Getanet]

If any regulation was implemented to protect a suffering deer population I would be all for it. If bucks weren't able to breed until their antlers reached a certain size I would be all for it as well.

But APR's aren't a regulation to help grow the size of the herd. In fact, they're really only considered for areas where there are quite a few deer, possibly even too many.

[TRZ II]

If any regulation was implemented to protect a suffering deer population I would be all for it. If bucks weren't able to breed until their antlers reached a certain size I would be all for it as well.

But APR's aren't a regulation to help grow the size of the herd. In fact, they're really only considered for areas where there are quite a few deer, possibly even too many.

In many areas the rut is the only way to harvest many deer. Several seasons the only deer i saw was a small buck. I hunt for love of outdoors and the opportunity to harvest an animal for my consumption. APR's force people to hunt for horns, which many of us do not. APR's don't increase herd size.

[mntatonka]

If any regulation was implemented to protect a suffering deer population I would be all for it. If bucks weren't able to breed until their antlers reached a certain size I would be all for it as well.

But APR's aren't a regulation to help grow the size of the herd. In fact, they're really only considered for areas where there are quite a few deer, possibly even too many.

And yet APR's don't help drop the population. So what's the point in putting them in places where there's too many deer?

[honker23]

APRs protect young bucks and give them an opportunity to survive the rut hunt as an silly-me 1.5 yr old full of hormones. I think it should be state wide, not just in areas with large populations. It makes sense to have a more restrictive season in areas with less deer.

[Wanderer]

I couldn't disagree more...

[Wanderer]

Long range ML shooting:

The general consensus is a minimum of 900-1000 ft lbs of energy is needed for a bullet to pass through a deer. From that point you can calculate your variables. This is where analyzing your particular weapon gives you confidence in what it can and can't do.

Scopes, max loads and modern bullets make today's MLs a viable long range weapon and that's why I'm against allowing scopes on MLs in the ML season (another topic to turn this train wreck of a thread). I have such a tool and am amazed by what it can do. Personally I don't think I'd ever take a 300 yard shot but I don't shoot 150 grains either. 100-150 yards is where I'm comfortable.

[Mr Special]

with todays technology a ML can definitely reach out further then most of us can shoot. "myself included"

heck sum ML use smokeless powder, that can reach out over 400yrds.

with the right combinations of powder, bullet type, a good ML and the right shooter a 300yrd shot using a ML for a good humane kill is not far fetched at all.

good luck everyone and have a safe n fun season

[deerminator]

I've said it once and I'll say it again, our DNR and all other state's natural resources departments manage hunting seasons SOCIALLY. That is, they manage according to what they perceive hunters want. The perception is Minnesota hunters want to see more deer and have a chance at shooting a buck during gun season. So the season is set accordingly. And that's why the bag limits have been reduced across the state. People want more deer in general, not a Lee and Tiffany buck. If I had to choose between watching a dozen deer on a sit, be it none of them are "shooters," and seeing one "shooter" every dozen sits, I'll take the first. I enjoy hunting, period. I may be in the minority, though.

I'd like to see the DNR resolve some this through a few simple survey questions they would ask when you buy your licenses. And its talk if you tell me that's too complicated. They could even figure out by zone who wants a gun season during the rut and who favors APRs, etc., versus relying on a vocal minority or "random" surveys with loaded questions. They manage bag limits by permit area, they could at a minimum manage hunter preferences by zones in addition to the experiment in zone 3.

[Musky Buck]

But Deerminator, your post, they increased permits in our area this year from hunters choice last year to 2 deer this year and not so long ago added either 7 or 5 days to our rifle hunt in the farmland, plus my area is the highest in muzzy hunter numbers in MN, how will that along with timberwolves now in the mix raise deer numbers ?

[Musky Buck]

When I think about gun hunt alleged peak of rut you have to think ok, are we talking 2 weeks from now or what ? Do you want to see a higher volume of road kills and wolf kills ? I would think wolves as it gets colder also like to fatten up for winter compared to like July. Once Saturday starts I start seeing way fewer deer close to roadways and my uncles start seeing way less timberwolves. Then what about muzzy season, that would be pushed back, people in places later part of Muzzy season not many but some are shooting bucks that have shed tagging them as antlerless. Think opening day on the northern border your high for the day might not break 0 some days, I muzzied December 13th a few years back and we started out -8 with -23 wind chill this was central MN, what's it like in Roseau or Babbitt or I falls ? Shouldn't we be allowing the deer a better chance of fattening up some from the rut etc. before winter sets in rather than driving them and pushing them hard during a later rifle season ? I've seen how productive a bait pile can be in September, I don't want to help the cheaters with a late rifle season, those baitpiles would really be money later. Believe it or not I'd be fine with a later rifle season, I own wintering ground and it would only help the deer numbers on my land, others wouldn't see squat, snow years there land is worthless for deer hunting. All the crops would be gone so food plots and deer corn would be serious magnets. I think with 500K gun hunters I'm not sure what the hope is in moving it back, to make it easier to see them with snow ? It would be all food related and nocturnal movement a later gun season, they're already nocturnal and as each colder passing day goes by more nocturnal as I think they're just saving energy in their beds, avoiding the cold wind, waiting for calmer times of the PM to go eat all night and bed before sunrise. IDK

[mntatonka]

[

I couldn't disagree more...

I'm sure, but the entire reasoning behind APR's in Zone 3 was to reduce the antlerless population. It didn't do that.

[96trigger]

What if they did all these surveys just as some propose and it came back clearly that the majority wanted APR and the season pushed back? What then?

I think some people are under the assumption that its a very small population that wants APR and bigger bucks. I got news people, large bucks are a billion dollar industry. Every outdoor sports flyer has big bucks on it. Why? Because soooo many people love them, myself included. If you don't think this is going to change hunting in the future, you are in denial. The younger generation is growing up "horn porn". When I was growing up, there was maybe one or two shows about hunting on TV, now there is a whole channel of it and they almost exclusively focus on trophies, or on quantities.

Regardless of what happens, somebody will not be happy.

[TruthWalleyes]

MB

I read an article in the outdoor news one of last few weeks which was an interview with the head DNR deer 'whatever the title was' person...

She stated that the hunters choice zones were created because turning a particular zone into managed would create too agressive of a harvest and a lottery zone was too conservative for a the DNR's plan. They created the hunters choice as a middle ground.

I think what many are missing is that the DNR is not building a herd population. That statement told me that they are only trying to maintain the populations in the lottery zones, which are considered by many to be too small.

They way i read into it is that the DNR is only setting zone limitations as a way of maintaining the population. In managed zones, the deer population is higher and must have a higher harvest to maintain current deer populations. This is also a tool to reduce populations in areas where populations have escalated beyond the DNR's plan.

She also went on to say that APR was not being considered as a state-wide "tool" at this point. I believe there was also a statement in the article about how the DNR manages for DOES, not bucks.

I think many of you want to see increased deer herds. Not sure the DNR sees it that way. I suppose APR is a middle ground for bigger antlers while populations maintain stagnant.

[Musky Buck]

The entire reasoning.........couldn't they just air that on the news, hunters in SE MN please help thin down the doe population thank you. Maybe you boys need some of our timberwolves down there, we'd be glad to share em.