deer density

[PurpleFloyd]

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.

[mntatonka]

Meaning expanded APR's to make a fringe group feel better.

not for a couple of years. The APR supporting groups (read: MWA), know they can't push for statewide APR's for a couple of years because people are so ticked about not having enough deer. Certainly seems like if there's not enough deer in the state, we shouldn't have APR anywhere at all.

[smsmith]

Meaning expanded APR's to make a fringe group feel better.

I have no idea how you or others get any APR message out of the MN Deer Density Initiative....

The MDDI has absolutely zero to with APRs. Period. End of story. There are plenty of folks who helped put it together who would never have done so if APRs were indeed part of the plan. The next petition party in Mora would not be happening if APRs were part of the plan, because the guy who organized it is not a fan of mandatory APRs. Go to the event, ask him for yourself. Listen to Brooks' Youtube video...absolutely nothing in there about APRs, mature bucks, buck age structure, YBP or any of the other buzz words surrounding APRs.

[smsmith]

This ratio- You are talking overall or what the APR crowd refers to as Mature?

I think we are talking shutting down the season totally here.

No, I am talking one deer per hunter forever.

Woah, I party hunt with my son, brothers and dad plus relatives and taking that away from us would be like prying the guns from our cold,dead hands.

I don't know how to do multiple quotes within a response, so bear with me.

In a natural environment (i.e. one without human predation) a deer herd tends to be balanced by age and sex. Most deer are young (2.5 and under), but there are numbers of older deer (both bucks and does).

Shutting down the season entirely...not gonna happen. The MN DNR needs the revenue that deer licenses provide.

I could be convinced into a one deer per season, per hunter rule. That's all I'd ever take anyway.

Party hunting/crosstagging is a hot button topic. I personally see no reason why somebody else should shoot another hunter's deer. You obviously feel differently. I'd guess that in the coming 5 years or so the crosstagging/party hunting issue will be addressed by the DNR. The outcome of that discussion will likely reflect what the majority of MN deer hunters want.

[Getanet]

Party hunting/crosstagging is a hot button topic. I personally see no reason why somebody else should shoot another hunter's deer. You obviously feel differently. I'd guess that in the coming 5 years or so the crosstagging/party hunting issue will be addressed by the DNR. The outcome of that discussion will likely reflect what the majority of MN deer hunters want.

Just curious if you are primarily a rifle hunter or bow hunter Smsmith? It's my observation - no data to support it - that bow hunters are the ones pushing for many of these changes that are upsetting to so many hunters.

Bow hunting tends to be more of an isolated pursuit, whereas the rifle season is more of a group/family activity. If you take away party hunting you're crushing many hunting camps. I don't see any other effective way to enforce "no party hunting/cross tagging" than to say once you've shot a deer your time in the woods is over. That would mean no option to do a deer drive to others you hunt with, couldn't help other track a wounded deer if necessary, couldn't help others drag their deer out, no talk'ing while everyone gathers for lunch. No nothing.

[smsmith]

Just curious if you are primarily a rifle hunter or bow hunter Smsmith? It's my observation - no data to support it - that bow hunters are the ones pushing for many of these changes that are upsetting to so many hunters.

Bow hunting tends to be more of an isolated pursuit, whereas the rifle season is more of a group/family activity. If you take away party hunting you're crushing many hunting camps. I don't see any other effective way to enforce "no party hunting/cross tagging" than to say once you've shot a deer your time in the woods is over.

Hmmm...when I lived in WI I'd have answered that question 100% bow hunter. Now, living here and not having the rut to bow hunt...that's a tougher question. I suppose I'd still say I'm a bowhunter first and firearm second.

Getting into the crosstagging/party hunting discussion/debate right now is probably pretty fruitless for me. I'll either further alienate you or someone else. I'd much prefer to focus on the things that you and I (I hope) and most every deer hunter in MN can agree on...needing to ease off on antlerless permits for at least a year and maybe two.

I would disagree with your premise that bowhunters are isolationists while firearm hunters are more gregarious. While that may or may not be true (I certainly have no data on the issue), it certainly is not true in my experience. Hunting for me (whether bow or firearm) has been pretty much a solitary activity my entire adult life. That doesn't mean that at the end of the day there isn't some socializing/story telling (both bow and gun), but the activity itself has always been an individual activity (again, for me). Thinking of someone else shooting a deer and expecting me to tag it.....wow...that would be one ugly situation

[PurpleFloyd]

There is something else going on with the deer density levels that is going on under the radar.

While it isn't openly discussed there is a sector of the community who would benefit in the long term by having a smaller deer herd that resulted in a number of hunters getting out of hunting. There is probably only one on this site who has been open and honest about wanting to limit the number of hunters in the woods so that there are more acres available for him but there are others who know that reducing the numbers of hunters increases the number of acres they have to hunt or to use to guide their clients. Ending party hunting is another way to help achieve this.

[rkhinrichs]

i dont like cross tagging. If you have a tag just use your own.

[minky]

If removing cross tagging from MN would help our deer herd I say do it!

[mntatonka]

i dont like cross tagging. If you have a tag just use your own.

What difference does it make to you, or anyone else, if I'm willing to put my tag on a deer someone else shot, and share the meat with them?

[Jameson]

There is something else going on with the deer density levels that is going on under the radar.

[nonteepical]

The reason has been explained to many times to count, but what's never explained is why is it you and others can't just shoot and tag your own deer? You would still be able to participate in hunting activities like deer drives,guttin, dragging or sitting with your kids while they try to fill their tag.

Lets say opening morning little Johnny has a hot doe by his stand and he shoots a nice 8 pointer, uses his tag and 10 minutes later a fork strolls by, he shoots it and uses uncle Bills tag (who wants to go home because he drank to much friday night), then an hour later the doe gets up and johnny shoots her, tags it with sloppy Sally, his sisters tag (never using dads tag because he wants to hunt next weekend with guys from work). Thats 2 deer dead that may or may not have been shot by other members of the hunting party, if they get to shoot them great! if not, thats hunting, it's 1 or 2 more deer for next year.

The DNR says very few deer hunters shoot multiple deer and i know thats not true, because the tags are in other peoples names, so how would they know unless it's registered under a management or lotto tag in their name. That senerio happens all the time and is a big contributer to the low deer densities.

[mntatonka]

Actually, you couldn't participate in drives, because you've used your one and only tag on your deer, so you can no longer legally hunt if cross tagging is illegal. You no longer have a legal tag, so you can't carry a weapon, so you legally cannot be in the woods doing a deer drive with people that do have a weapon.

The entire point behind banning cross tagging is to stop deer drives, and eliminate a way of hunting for a large number of hunters. People are so concerned that one person might get a chance to shoot two bucks. Big freaking deal. Go over and congratulate the guy for having a hell of a year, and tag his deer. I've done it quite a few times, and I know anyone in my party would do the same for me if it was legal. It even makes people poachers, when they mistake a spike for a doe. Then they've got to leave it in the woods, or risk a ticket and fine. And don't give me the dump about how I should know my target. My target is a deer, it's food. And we've all pulled up on a doe, only to realize that it has 3" spikes hiding behind those ears when it turns it's head. Well. Those do us willing to stoop to the low level of actually shooting a doe of course. I know many hunters would never stoop to that level, and can only take the almighty buck.

The selfishness of hunters these days is completely ruining the sport. Everyone is so concerned that someone is going to shoot "their buck", that they'd rather completely shut down their land to anyone else than take that chance. Hunters are lazy too, so many of us sit in tree stands all year, and then wonder why we didn't see any deer. Get off your one-just-like-silly-me and go find them, get them moving, and you'll see and shoot more deer.

[laker1]

I never seen where the DNR said most people don't shoot multible deer(unless they did a special survey they don't have that info),but do agree,that if you have a party of 5,someone is going to shoot more than one deer probably 50% of the time.

Yes we need more restrictions at least for 3 years or so ,also remember

Deer populations go up and down naturally,we really haven't had the super deer killing winter since 1996-97. That is one lucky long stretch.

[mntatonka]

Lou mentioned at a couple of input meetings that the average was somewhere in the 1.2-1.6 range per successful hunter. So very few actually tag more than one.

[laker1]

Is that tagging other deer that the persom himself or herself had when you could get multi-tags?

I wonder if that is what he is talking about. If you shoot a DEER for another person,that other person tags that deer,not the person who shot it. The registration system just records the license holder who registered a deer,not who shot it?

Also if each person who shot a deer ends up averaging 1.6 deer,cumulatively that adds up.

[mntatonka]

Is that tagging other deer that the persom himself or herself had when you could get multi-tags?

I wonder if that is what he is talking about. If you shoot a DEER for another person,that other person tags that deer,not the person who shot it. The registration system just records the license holder who registered a deer,not who shot it?

Also if each person who shot a deer ends up averaging 1.6 deer,cumulatively that adds up.

It does, but that was a few years ago when there were more intensive and managed areas. Then there's a few of us who skew that number. My dad tagged 8 one year. Granted, he shot 7 of them himself. Heck, I tagged 4 this year, and only shot one myself. But I also hunt in an area that has a LOT of deer due to us essentially being the only population management hunters in the local area. Not to mention a few thousand acres of land that's locked up due to leasing, and another couple thousand that's completely off limits to hunting.

[rkhinrichs]

"The selfishness of hunters these days is completely ruining the sport." That is far from the truth for me. I prob spent more time with my cousins and trying to help them shoot a deer then me.

[PurpleFloyd]

Is it me??? I have been open about wanting a buck lottery to go along with our antlerless lottery. But I have no desire for more acres to hunt as I already have plenty of land to hunt, just wish there was a few more deer on those acres. If it means everyone sacrificing some of our hunting for better hunting for everyone it would be worth it IMO.

[laker1]

PurpleFloyd-good points.

[smsmith]

I guess it comes down to how you define success in hunting. If your idea is you should be able to plop your fanny on any property in the state and see a magazine cover deer come prancing by then yeah,you may be a touch unrealistic. If, OTOH success means getting out in the field with friends and family and accepting what the good lord provides you then I would say it is possible and is happening already. I know the advent of commercialization in the hunting industry has changed the way a lot of hunters look at the sport, and in order to keep the images coming that drive the increase in sales every year they rely on selling the dream of a wall hanger in every 40 but that just isn't going to happen and if it did, it would end up being only for those with the resources to afford it.

Why does this thread keep getting turned into a discussion on APRs and "a wall hanger" on every 40?

I understand that APRs and crosstagging have been and will continue to be hot button topics. However, neither of those topics are part of the MDDI. All the MDDI is pushing for is for the DNR to start using some biology (not social science) or at least common sense for antlerless tag allocation and when setting pre-fawn densities. Why does unit 214 have pre-fawn densities of 20 and unit 215 has 10? These two units are directly adjacent and have identical habitat. Why does unit 239 have pre-fawn densities of 9, while directly adjacent 240 has 18 and 241 has 32?

How do we get that accomplished? Make the next round of public stakeholder meetings more representative of the folks who live in those units. Make it a transparent process. Video tape the meetings. Make the minutes of the meetings available to the public.

[Getanet]

Ssmith, you're on here seemingly as a representative of the MDDI. While that may be a cause many of us would support, you've also made it clear you're for APR and would like to see party hunting eliminated. Judging by your your handle, it's also safe to say you've posted on the MWA page along the lines of "we need your help now, and you'll need our help later to expand APR."

So, while you may be posting your own individual thoughts and opinions both on HSO and Facebook, fair or not your opinions reflect on the MDDI. Many of us are leery of anything that is tied to APR or banning of party hunting.

[smsmith]

Ssmith, you're on here seemingly as a representative of the MDDI. While that may be a cause many would support, you've also made it clear your for APR and would support the elimination of party hunting. Judging by your your handle, it's also safe to say you've posted on the MWA page along the lines of "we need your help now, and you'll need our help later to expand APR."

So, while you may be posting your own individual thoughts and opinions both on HSO and Facebook, fair or not you're seeming representing the MDDI. Many of us are leery of anything that is tied to APR or banning of party hunting.

MDDI is not tied to APR or banning of party hunting....period.

Am I a supporter of an increased number of APR units? In areas where there is an adequate number of does to handle an increased kill and where the majority of hunters support them.....yes. Would I support APRs in my unit RIGHT NOW? Nope. It would be a recipe for disaster. Have I posted on MWA about being supportive of the expansion of APRs to units where the above two criteria exist? Yep. Have I also posted on MWA's page that pushing for statewide APR would be a mistake? Yep. Do I believe statewide APR's will (or should) ever happen here? Nope. Have I expressed my opinion to Ted W. with MWA that pushing for an expansion of APR's right now would be a mistake? Yep.

The MDDI is a completely separate entity with completely different methodology and a completely different message than the MWA.

Believe it or not I guess. The only reason I came back to this site was to post information on the MDDI and to attempt to clear up misinformation. If you want to be leery and suspicious...that's your choice.

BTW...call me Stu

[hockeybc69]

Quote:

If anything we are seeing the best hunting we have ever had in my 30 plus years of hunting. Next year should be better than this year.

There is the narrow sighted part I have read a few times...

How hard is it to understand that you might be experienceing everything of your dreams, but there is a very large population of people saying something is really a mess?

Good for you. You are one of the lucky ones in this day and age. Dont forget there are a lot of people that are not and have not experienced that for a while now.

[mntatonka]

MDDI is not tied to APR or banning of party hunting....period.

While this is true, the people pushing MDDI are also seeking an awful lot of support from groups that ARE pushing APR and party hunting ban. Don't get me wrong, I think the idea behind MDDI is sound, I just don't know that it's being pushed in a positive way when things like "Push comes to shove on APR's you're gonna need folks to have your back" are posted by MDDI supporters.

As far as I'm concerned, APR and cross-tagging ban should either go statewide or be eliminated, regardless of deer populations. Why should those of us in Zone 3 be the only ones who get to enjoy such regulations?