Gun season in peak of rut

[96trigger]

Quote:

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

In some areas it did. If you are in an area that has too many does, maybe you should take more does. Or let someone on that would be more than happy to take some does.

I have a friend that was just griping about this the other day. I asked him how many does he and his group have shot in the last year. He said 1.

The answer is so obvious right, too many does, shoot more does. Want to see bigger bucks, stop shooting smaller bucks.

Unfortunately, I fully agree with a previous poster that said we sportsman have great intentions on management but have lousy follow through. We have proven that as a whole, we lack the ability to regulate ourselves and need to be regulated.

[Musky Buck]

Thanks Truth sounds right to me, no doubt trigger, really have no idea how many deer hunters I know and talk with, maybe 50-100 yearly with 1/2 that being relatives and they would all vote yes we want APR, I'd say 95/100 would be in favor and it likely would be 100/100. Do they speak up no do they chat in here no, do they really care no, they'll all be blaze orange, gun in hand, tag in pocket ready this Saturday doing APR or go grow or whatever it is taking does otherwise like we have for 25 years now, I think repeat think many of us just growing up farming, seeing deer nearly daily if we want, we just have this weird respect thing for young animals deer included, they live on our land and farms, we care about their well-being year round, we leave the fawns and yearling bucks for future seed, we shed hunt, feed during bad winters and springs, we constantly look for them while driving, we enjoy the yearly cycle of life they live, IDK but I do know we're all hoping for a nice buck opening day or beyond, it's the right of passage to winter and makes for great stories at Thanksgiving.

[bigsam]

That's why I hunt the CWD zone. Brown it's down! I am a meat eater, and I don't care if it has antlers or not. If I get to see more than one this weekend, I will be a happy fat man.

[mntatonka]

In some areas it did. If you are in an area that has too many does, maybe you should take more does. Or let someone on that would be more than happy to take some does.

I have a friend that was just griping about this the other day. I asked him how many does he and his group have shot in the last year. He said 1.

The answer is so obvious right, too many does, shoot more does. Want to see bigger bucks, stop shooting smaller bucks.

Unfortunately, I fully agree with a previous poster that said we sportsman have great intentions on management but have lousy follow through. We have proven that as a whole, we lack the ability to regulate ourselves and need to be regulated.

35 antlerless deer. That's approsimately how many were shot on our land last year. I don't think not shooting enough does is the problem for us.

[96trigger]

Yep Musky,

I think if they ever did come right out and ask "are you in favor of antler point restrictions" There would be much more support for it than many people realize.

I also think there is enough support for it in some low deer density areas that it could get pushed for statewide, however, I don't think that will ever happen. I believe the DNR is trying to manage for population growth. I think there goal is to get every area in the state to a Managed population. When that happens, there would be a better chance of spreading APR statewide.

Right now, I do think that there are other managed areas in the state that would like to move to APR.

[flipper]

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.

Yes, you hit on a big part of the problem. Too many fenced in hunting shows that are making some of you think you are a failure if your deer doesn't "measure up". This mentality of making people feel guilty if their deer is not a "Booner" is what is ruining hunting IMO.

[deerminator]

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 ?

What? Not sure what you mean? Or what your are trying to say? Just because they raise the bag limit doesn't mean they aren't managing for numbers if they did a count and there are more deer in your area? No one ever said they are trying to have the population explode, just that they are managing for more deer, not antlers, in most of the state.

[Getanet]

Yep Musky,

I think if they ever did come right out and ask "are you in favor of antler point restrictions" There would be much more support for it than many people realize.

I would be interested in those figures too. I know prior to implementing it in Zone 3 it was around 46-47% when they asked about APR's specifically, so I would be surprised if there was was a majority support for it statewide.

[FISHINGURU]

One of the properties I hunt is in Zone 3, love the APR rule.

[TruthWalleyes]

Yep Musky,

I think there goal is to get every area in the state to a Managed population.

I think that would be great, but what makes you think that is what they are trying to do?

It's habitat that creates the deer populations that can sustain a "Managed" harvest level.

For example, if you take a lottery zone (I'll use 295 in SW MN as i know it well) a zone that has been lottery since i was born, that since i've turned 16 years old has not seen a doe lottery higher than 100 tags, has yet to achieve a population that can sustain a "Managed" harvest. My belief - is that the habitat just won't support that many deer and the zone continues to be lottery with few doe tags in order to maintain the current population. After so many years, why hasn't this zone gone to managed if that is the DNR's intent.

again, just an example and i could be all wet here, but was curious why you feel the DNR is managing deer to get to all zones "Managed" rather than lottery or intensive.

[96trigger]

I don't disagree that the questions were not misleading. They should just come right out and ask what they want to know. I know in the original survey 4 or 5 years ago, moving the firearm season out of the rut was one of the least popular options.

If I'm wrong and there isn't much support than so be it. I can't honestly say that I am seeing more or less mature bucks because of it. I can tell you that I am seeing more 1.5 and 2.5 year old deer, but that's about the extent of it.

I think people's attitudes towards hunting are changing. I know mine have and it doesn't really have anything to do with horn porn. I like chasing mature bucks, I like seeing them and sharing the stories. I always have. I think shooting the yearling forks and baskets was not a challenge for me anymore. I enjoy shooting them with my phone now instead. I still stand by the fact that they are the easiest deer to shoot with the firearm season during the rut. I had one watch me take my phone out of my pocket, take two pictures and put it back in my pocket. How many mature bucks or does for that matter would have done that? I was chasing mature bucks buck with my bow long before APR was ever introduced. I was a long time 3B hunter before we switched to 3A for a number of reasons 3 years ago. I wanted a mature buck and never saw one during the 3B season, so I picked up archery 15 years ago and got hooked instantly.

The kids now are all jacked up for hunting and the chance at seeing a nice buck. I see it daily, it's exciting and it's fun. There is cordial competition among friends and classmates. I get the argument that if this is the case, why the need for APR? I believe that this trend was going too slow, and many people grew tired of seeing all the little bucks on meat poles and in the back of trucks, especially when does for meat were not terribly difficult to come by.

[96trigger]

Quote:

again, just an example and i could be all wet here, but was curious why you feel the DNR is managing deer to get to all zones "Managed" rather than lottery or intensive.

I do believe that there are some areas that may not ever get the population to managed levels due to density independent variables like habitat, weather, and predators. I do recall at one point in time the DNR mentioning what there targeted population per square mile was, and it fell in line with managed areas. I don't remember where I read it, if I can find it I'll post it.

[mntatonka]

I would be interested in those figures too. I know prior to implementing it in Zone 3 it was around 46-47% when they asked about APR's specifically, so I would be surprised if there was was a majority support for it statewide.

Except the question wasn't "Do you support Antler Point Restrictions?". The question was worded "Do you support a regulation that promotes mature bucks?" And "Which regulation do you support that promotes mature bucks?".

Who isn't going to say "yes, I support a regulation that would give me bigger bucks"?.

[Getanet]

I don't disagree that the questions were not misleading. They should just come right out and ask what they want to know. I know in the original survey 4 or 5 years ago, moving the firearm season out of the rut was one of the least popular options.

I'm not too concerned about the questions being misleading. But what happens is they ask, "would you like to see more mature bucks." That's like asking someone if they would like to make more money, have ice cream for dinner or see a nekked lady. Of course anytime you ask people if they would like to see more of a desired outcome you're going to get a high favorable response. But that doesn't mean the tactics to get there are justified. For example, if 70% of those polled agreed they would like to make more money, that doesn't mean you should force folks to get a second job.

So, would I like to see more mature bucks? Sure. Do I think someone should have to pass on an otherwise healthy buck, so that I can potentially shoot it next year? No.

[TylerS]

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.

Which is EXACTLY what is wrong with sportsmen today. It's either whack-and-stack or racks, racks, racks. Sickening.

[96trigger]

I don't necessarily see anything wrong with their change in attitudes. They are still enjoying the outdoors. Still enjoying the same comradarie that many of us enjoy. They are still being stewards of nature. They just have a different set of values.

It is unfortunate that so many feel this is the downfall of hunting and fishing. Many of these kids know nothing else. I don't think there is anything wrong with having a generation that wants to wait for bigger deer. That takes ownership in cultivating a new way of thinking and managing a population. The younger generation is not ignorant and they are not lazy. I am very happy to be able to talk hunting and fishing with them on a regular basis. Conservation is not a term they are unfamiliar with and they are very aware of what to do, and what not do with their natural resources. They do know that they have to preserve and protect to be able to enjoy the outdoors.

I don't know what it means long term. I do know that it will mean that the way we hunt and how we hunt may change over time. The 2013 regulation book looks nothing like the 1983, 1993, or even 2003 regulation book.

[mitch]

I grew up in MN and went to college in Iowa and got a job in Iowa after graduation. I hunted the 3B and archery seasons growing up in MN. Before I left MN I bought a MN lifetime archery license, just so I would have more days to hunt with my dad when I came home to visit. So I still hunt MN and have been hunting in Iowa for 3 years.

I am against the APR. I don't think the state needs to qualify the size of the animal you plan to shoot, that should be a personal judgement. BUT I do think the regulations should be written to give all types of hunters the best opportunity to have a successful hunt, whatever that may be.

I wish MN would do something SIMILAR to Iowa. The archery season starts later, October 1. No one likes bow hunting in 90 degree weather in September anyway. The archery season is closed during the gun seasons. And the gun seasons do not take place during the rut.

The hunting tactics between MN and Iowa are pretty much the same. During the gun seasons the orange army is out in full force, doing drives, just like in MN. Small bucks, mature bucks, fawns and does are all shot during the gun season here, no different than MN.

In my opinion MN has MUCH more quality deer habitat than Iowa (Have you driven through IA its just corn!), yet all the TV shows brag about Iowa constantly. The difference comes that the MN gun season is during the rut. Deer are on the move anyway during that time, no need to have people pushing them through the woods. Give the deer a chance to pass on their genetics and then go ahead hunt them hard afterwards.

I think MN would do itself a favor by moving the gun seasons back 2 weeks. And I'm not just saying this because I'm an archery purist that wants to save the big bucks for myself. I've shot one buck in my life and it didn't even break 125". I don't care how you hunt as long as it's legal and sporting.

I think this would solve a lot of the issues that are dividing us as deer hunters. Down here there isn't a huge disagreement between "meat" hunters and "trophy" hunters. I'm not saying it's perfect but there is much less turmoil than there is up in God's Country.

Sorry for the long message, but after moving to Iowa I honestly think they have the right approach, and MN could easily overtake Iowa as the deer capital of the US if the MNDNR took a similar one.

[hockeybc69]

Quote:

Who isn't going to say "yes, I support a regulation that would give me bigger bucks"?.

Many people on here from what I have read over and over and over.......

[Coach1310]

Just so folks are aware, I am a gun and bow hunter.

Secondly, if we want to move the gun season out of the rut, fine, but shut it down for all hunting, no matter the weapon. NO GUNS, NO BOWS, etc... that should protect the deer during their most vulnerable time.

Thirdly, comparing Iowa and Minnesota as if they are the same, is not a great comparison. Habitat is different and the pressure is MUCH different... for example: The MNR projects 500,000 hunters for gun season. The Iowa DNR had 150,000 last year. If you do some math on what kind of pressure you find...

Total Square Miles in MN- 86,943... which works out to about .17 square miles per hunter

Total Square Miles in Iowa- 56,276... which works out to about .37 square miles per hunter

A simplistic conclusion you can make is that a deer has TWICE the chance to survive in Iowa by pressure alone since an Iowa hunter has twice as much ground per person to cover.

I realize there are a million different factors. If license sales dropped to 230,000 in MN, you would get about the same pressure as the deer do in Iowa from a hunter perspective. If that were the case, my guess would be a lot of nicer bucks running around.

Just a thought I had when reading above posts.

[wally243]

Trigger you should tell us your life hunting journey. Where you hunt? Who you hunt with? How much land you own? How you got your land access? What you do for a job? How many kids you have and the age? Do you bow hunt? I bet most of us already know the answer due to narrow minded ideas??? Why don't you just buy more land so you don't have to worry about us??? I bet our answers to these questions are very close and I actually like how you think, but I refuse to push this on people that aren't as fortunate as maybe we are. I am just speculating of course.

[Sutty]

My

First I wish everyone have a safe and successful hunt this year.

I believe the DNR has a pretty good grasp of what deer hunters want. When it comes to counting and managing well... that's for another day

Most hunters just want to get out and be able to shoot whatever they want. APR backers are currently in the minority and it is not close. Opinions may change in the future and if they do then we could see different regulations. However I believe if opinions changed we wouldn't need any new regulations. More people would hold off on the younger deer.

I like the current seasons. I hunt in slug land and not long ago we had 2 days to hunt. That encouraged the shoot anything mentality (not that there is anything wrong with that) Now people can be more patient if they choose to and I believe there are now starting to be more mature deer around.

[deerminator]

Thirdly, comparing Iowa and Minnesota as if they are the same, is not a great comparison. Habitat is different and the pressure is MUCH different...

Exactly, that's why when people say there is no reason that Minnesota can't become the next Wisconsin or Iowa, I would reply, you're right, if we're willing to substantially alter our landscape and habitat, tell hundreds of thousands of people they can't hunt or ban hunting for a few years to let the deer population explode. APRs are nice and moving the gun season outside the rut are intriguing ideas, but saying they alone are going to produce bigger bucks on a large scale is ridiculous.

It's like saying I recycle so I am saving the planet. Recycling is nice and good and my family does it because I see how much that can be recycled goes into the landfill. But trying to save the plant through recycling is like trying to empty the ocean with a teaspoon. You need to make much bigger, broad ranging changes to do it - on the front end. i.e. less materials going into food and drink packaging and so on.

Habitat, deer numbers and hunting pressure are the three things that are going to lead to bigger bucks. It's a numbers game.

BTW, in my most recent edition of D&DH, Minnesota was listed as one of the top Midwestern states to plan an outstate deer hunt in. So apparently, others think we have something good going on in this state and I would agree with them.

[Musky Buck]

Did that D and DH magazine state that a consistent number of 98% residents and 2% are non-residents that hunt deer in MN year after year ? And 1/2 those non-residents are people formerly from MN. I thought we had something good here to until zone 4 became zone 2 and our area was invaded by timberwolves. I have now 9 rifle stands to choose from and that's what I needed to do with the mass pressure in the areas I hunt in, that has made a huge difference because lets face it in many places the deer have your stand pegged immediately after opening day, that wind tomorrow will sharpen many a deers senses. I need fresh stand sites in order to be successful. MN isn't all bad no, there has to be 1 buck around worth trying for each year I just need to figure 1-9 which spot is the highest % and which of 3 counties to try.

[Kwassy1]

Here's a different take on things. I have been fortunate enough to be able to hunt 100's of acres of private land in SE MN. My Grandpa started hunting down there more than 60 years ago. Since the APR was set in place we have lost about 50% of it due to out of state people coming in and offering absurd amounts of money to hunt private land.

People are catching wind of the point restrictions and immediately thinking that there as 170" bucks running around like they see on TV. How long until this area turns out the same way Buffalo County WI did. It's an AWESOME area to hunt, with some very nice deer, but unless you have sponsors that are willing to fork over thousands of dollars for that chance to get video of you taking a trophy while you are wearing hat with their logo on it, you will likely never be able to hunt there.

Good luck tomorrow, hope each and everyone on here has an encounter with whatever they are looking for tomorrow, be it meat or horns.

[PurpleFloyd]

Here's a different take on things. I have been fortunate enough to be able to hunt 100's of acres of private land in SE MN. My Grandpa started hunting down there more than 60 years ago. Since the APR was set in place we have lost about 50% of it due to out of state people coming in and offering absurd amounts of money to hunt private land.

People are catching wind of the point restrictions and immediately thinking that there as 170" bucks running around like they see on TV. How long until this area turns out the same way Buffalo County WI did. It's an AWESOME area to hunt, with some very nice deer, but unless you have sponsors that are willing to fork over thousands of dollars for that chance to get video of you taking a trophy while you are wearing hat with their logo on it, you will likely never be able to hunt there.

Good luck tomorrow, hope each and everyone on here has an encounter with whatever they are looking for tomorrow, be it meat or horns.

Someone gets it.