deer density

[Getanet]

Absolutely not true. MWA has dropped support of this initiative because it contradicts there stance on APR......

There is not one ounce of APR in any of the presentations, and its not some hidden agenda.

Think what you want I guess.

Please elaborate on this Hockeybc69. Are you saying the WMA has dropped support of the Deer Density Initiative?

[hockeybc69]

To the best of my knowledge, that is correct.

[smsmith]

Absolutely not true. MWA has dropped support of this initiative because it contradicts there stance on APR......

There is not one ounce of APR in any of the presentations, and its not some hidden agenda.

Think what you want I guess.

Yep, this ^^^ There is absolutely nothing about APR's in the background of this Initiative. It was discussed by the folks who put it together and decided that APR's are a separate issue entirely and not something we wanted to address. MDHA, QDMA, MBI and MWA members (not leaders, MEMBERS) were responsible for putting this Initiative and petition together.

As pointed out above, MWA has decided to focus on APR's and not put their "corporate stamp of approval" on the Initiative and/or the petition.

[Getanet]

That's interesting. I wonder why they wouldn't support a move to increase the deer herd in MN?

[smsmith]

Please elaborate on this Hockeybc69. Are you saying the WMA has dropped support of the Deer Density Initiative?

I'd say yes and no. I believe the MWA supports the MDDI and the petition, but have chosen to not make it part of their official/corporate "platform". They are worried about pi$$ing off the DNR and the implications thereof in regards to a future APR push.

The best way to find out MWA's stance would be to contact them through their facebook page I imagine

[Getanet]

They are worried about pi$$ing off the DNR and the implications thereof in regards to a future APR push.

Oh, I would imagine if the DNR read much of the comments on the WMA's Facebook page they would already be pi$$ed off. Not necessarily comments from the administrators, but individuals who are likely members of the MWA. Not a lot of love for the DNR to be found there. I guess that goes for a lot of outdoor groups though.

[hockeybc69]

Quote:

That's interesting. I wonder why they wouldn't support a move to increase the deer herd in MN?

Just a guess, but in order to increase deer number, antlerless harvest must be lowered.... What is then harvested in higher numbers in the short term??? The bucks that MWA and APR supporters are trying to keep alive....

[smsmith]

Oh, I would imagine if the DNR read much of the comments on the WMA's Facebook page they would already be pi$$ed off. Not necessarily comments from the administrators, but individuals who are likely members of the MWA. Not a lot of love for the DNR to be found there. I guess that goes for a lot of outdoor groups though.

Think you've been reading my posts on the MWA page

[candiru]

From my memory we have been told on here that QDM is about lower deer numbers.

[smsmith]

From my memory we have been told on here that QDM is about lower deer numbers.

I don't know who told you that, but whoever it was they were either speaking in generalities (i.e. "if you have 100 deer per square mile, you probably need to reduce the number of does to improve the buck/doe ratio") or they just don't understand QDM.

QDM has little to do with high or low deer numbers. It has to do with attempting to achieve a 1:1.5 or 1:2 buck/doe ratio (1:1 would be amazing, but highly unlikely except on intensively managed properties consisting of multiple square miles). If you have the property that can support 50 dpsm and have a good b:d ratio, then you are practicing QDM. If you have the property that only support 20 dpsm and you have 50, then you need to reduce the population.

If there's one thing that really gets me worked up its someone who thinks they understand QDM and the QDMA and then goes out and allows some ridiculous B.S. to spill out of their mouth (or off their fingertips on a keyboard)

[B. Amish]

From my memory we have been told on here that QDM is about lower deer numbers.

or if you want meat, just shoot a doe.

[laker1]

Going back 30 years ago it was like 1 buck to 6-7 anterless in the woods.

[smsmith]

Going back 30 years ago it was like 1 buck to 6-7 anterless in the woods.

It may have seemed that way, but its highly unlikely

http://www.qdma.com/articles/the-reality-of-doebuck-ratios

[laker1]

You throw the fawns into that picture it was pretty close in tne northwoods.

[PurpleFloyd]

A lot of that QDMA stuff comes from private ranches and areas of privately owned land that are large enough to create a custom herd. In nature,if left to their own with no human interference you will never see a 1:1 or 1:2 ratio except if it is an anomaly.

If you want to grow the deer herd you need more does and to get more does you have to reduce permits and that will put more stress on bucks unless you restrict license sales.

Personally I think they should have a 1 deer per hunter per year limit. They should move back the gun season by a week or two and shorten the bow season to end when gun season starts,stick muzzleloader season at the same time as gun season and then once gun season ends, leave them alone to fatten up for the winter

[smsmith]

A lot of that QDMA stuff comes from private ranches and areas of privately owned land that are large enough to create a custom herd. In nature,if left to their own with no human interference you will never see a 1:1 or 1:2 ratio except if it is an anomaly.

If you want to grow the deer herd you need more does and to get more does you have to reduce permits and that will put more stress on bucks unless you restrict license sales.

Personally I think they should have a 1 deer per hunter per year limit. They should move back the gun season by a week or two and shorten the bow season to end when gun season starts,stick muzzleloader season at the same time as gun season and then once gun season ends, leave them alone to fatten up for the winter

I'd disagree with your statement about a b:d ratios in a true natural environment. A 1:2 ratio would be about the norm where non-human predation is the major "killer" besides Mother Nature.

I'll agree with you that in order to grow the herd we need fewer (or no) antlerless tags for a year or two. That may possibly negatively impact our buck herd, but since about 70% of our yearling bucks are killed every year in MN I don't see a few percentage points of an increase having much more negative impact than we already have.

I'll also agree with you that for at least two years we should have a one deer per hunter limit. I'd love to move the gun season back to the Saturday before Thanksgiving, but I have no delusions that will ever happen. I would support shortening archery season by at least a month and believe that muzzie season should be concurrent with regular firearm season. I would also support making crosstagging/party hunting illegal statewide.

All those things said...I don't believe we'll get anything from the DNR in the near future except a more conservative antlerless tag allotment and POSSIBLY a stronger hunter voice in the stakeholder meeting process.

[smsmith]

Just want to let anyone who is interested know that the MWA is not going to officially support the MN Deer Density Initiative. They state they do support what it stands for, but due to a "political move" they will not officially back the MDDI. They are certainly entitled to that stance, however when/if the push comes to expand APR's to units where they make biological sense and where the majority of hunters support them...the MWA is gonna need as much support as they can get. They just lost one guy (that'd be me) who is pretty vocal and willing to "nut up" when it comes to backing something they believe in. We need unity RIGHT NOW...and the MWA isn't helping out on that front.

[koonie]

Petitions also located at the following locations

Whitcombs Archery, Princeton MN

Archery Headquarters, Rochester MN

Blackdog Archery, Braham MN

Monticello Bait, Monticello MN

DJ's Sporting Goods, Montevideo MN

Beimert Outdoors Pillager

Midwest Archery St Michael

Lewiston Sportsmens Club

Bialka's Bar, Opole MN

Da Fishin' Hole, Little Falls MN

Archery Country Rogers MN

Upcoming meetings open to the public that Brooks is hosting and going over his presentations at:

*Monticello Gun Club Meeting Tuesday January 14th 7 pm at the Monticello Community Center

*January 29th, 2014, from 7-8pm - meet and greet at 6pm in Mora MN, at the "Pine Room", which is located in the Back of Freddies Cafe next to the Chevrolet Garage on HWY 65 as you enter the Town of Mora from the south. Address is 810 Hwy 65 south, Mora Mn 55051

Just an fyi. At the moment there is no petition to sign at DJs Sporting goods.

[smsmith]

Just an fyi. At the moment there is no petition to sign at DJs Sporting goods.

I will check on that

[candiru]

Just want to let anyone who is interested know that the MWA is not going to officially support the MN Deer Density Initiative. They state they do support what it stands for, but due to a "political move" they will not officially back the MDDI. They are certainly entitled to that stance, however when/if the push comes to expand APR's to units where they make biological sense and where the majority of hunters support them...the MWA is gonna need as much support as they can get. They just lost one guy (that'd be me) who is pretty vocal and willing to "nut up" when it comes to backing something they believe in. We need unity RIGHT NOW...and the MWA isn't helping out on that front.

The message that I got from them on their facebook page is that protecting young bucks (APR) is more important than rebuilding the deer herd.

[smsmith]

Just an fyi. At the moment there is no petition to sign at DJs Sporting goods.

The petition was mailed on Monday, maybe the person who received it hasn't dropped it off yet?

[Getanet]

That may possibly negatively impact our buck herd, but since about 70% of our yearling bucks are killed every year in MN I don't see a few percentage points of an increase having much more negative impact than we already have.

Gosh darn it Smsmith, I know you're new here but I was starting to like you until you tossed out the 70% stat. I triple dog dare you to show any credible source that cites that statistic.

I, for one, am about increasing opportunities for hunters, which includes their ability to choose for themselves what to harvest. I could get on the Deer Density Initiative bus, as the result would be more opportunities for hunters. But if it's simply a prelude to expanding APR, no thanks.

[smsmith]

Gosh darn it Smsmith, I know you're new here but I was starting to like you until you tossed out the 70% stat. I triple dog dare you to show any credible source that cites that statistic.

I, for one, am about increasing opportunities for hunters, which includes their ability to choose for themselves what to harvest. I could get on the Deer Density Initiative bus, as the result would be more opportunities for hunters. But if it's simply a prelude to expanding APR, no thanks.

Depends on your definition of "credible" I suppose. The QDMA annual report shows about a 70% yearling buck kill in MN....now..is that credible? Since the MN DNR doesn't keep any data on age of bucks killed, the QDMA report uses other sources of data. Are they accurate? I can't tell you.

I don't see the MDDI as a "prelude" to APRs. I'd think the fact that the MWA has backed out of officially supporting the the Initiative that would offer some "proof" of that fact.

Even though I'm new here, I can take criticism

I would say that many of the folks who were involved with putting the Initiative together are AND are not proponents of APR's. Some were, some were not. Some were supportive of voluntary APR/yearling buck protection, some were supportive of mandatory APR/YBP IN UNITS WHERE THE MAJORITY OF HUNTERS WANT THEM AND WHERE THE DOE HERD CAN HANDLE ADDED PRESSURE, some were completely against any type of APR/YBP.

I felt pretty proud that a diverse group of folks were able to put aside personal thoughts/stances on APRs and deal with the most important issue....that of increasing the deer herd where its necessary and demanding more hunter representation on the next round of stakeholder meetings.

[Getanet]

Depends on your definition of "credible" I suppose. The QDMA annual report shows about a 70% yearling buck kill in MN....now..is that credible? Since the MN DNR doesn't keep any data on age of bucks killed, the QDMA report uses other sources of data. Are they accurate? I can't tell you.

No, I wouldn't say the QDMA report on the age of MN's deer harvest is credible. But if you're going to use their stats, why don't you use the the most current information the QDMA reports? That would be 41% in 2009, which can be found in both the 2012 and 2013 QDMA reports.

[smsmith]

No, I wouldn't say the QDMA report on the age of MN's deer harvest is credible. But if you're going to use their stats, why don't you use the the most current information the QDMA reports? That would be 41% in 2009, which can be found in both the 2012 and 2013 QDMA reports.

Fair enough. 2007 and '08 are both listed as 67%