Audit Push: Time To Act!

[Getanet]

If there was a management scheme that would allow both parties to be happy, wouldn't that be the best scenario? Have enough deer on the landscape to allow traditional hunters plenty of opportunity to harvest deer, yet have enough mature deer to keep big buck hunters happy. I guarantee overall hunter satisfaction would increase.

Yes. In theory if you had a large enough population all hunters would be more satisfied. But as we've experienced that typically swings the pendulum to where insurance companies, forest industry, farmers, etc. wouldn't be.

[Getanet]

As far imposing restrictions goes...that's a two way street. We have a current system of restrictions....those who want a different set are just not happy using what they perceive to be an antiquated model of deer management. Who's right? The guys who are satisfied with traditional management or those who'd like something perceived as being more up to date? Neither? Both?

I'm right, of course

But in all seriousness, the current systems of restrictions are the most democratic. In most cases they allow the hunter the freedom to shoot what they are satisfied with.

What grinds my gears is I can virtually guarantee you that 90% of the guys/gals pushing APR legislation are the same ones who biatch about liberals always wanting to create new laws because they think they know what's best for everyone.

But that's another topic for another day. In general I don't see anything wrong with the concept of reviewing the current way the DNR calculates population levels and harvest goals. Nothing may change, but it's worth exploring.

[smsmith]

Mn DNR records do show that there has been know problem with practically all does getting bred the first time.

Are you referring to the fetal analysis studies done on roadkilled does? At the time those studies were done, it did appear that does were largely being bred in their first cycle. The problem with that data is the same as with much of our DNR data...it is old. They stopped doing fetal analysis studies about a decade ago I believe. If you are aware of some current research on the subject here in MN I'd appreciate a link to it.

FWIW...the data I saw on fetal analysis stated that the average fawn recruitment in the southern 2/3-3/4 of the state was 1.9 per doe. During the weather period the research was done, I could be convinced of that with some talking. During the last two winters...you'd be better off trying to sell me some swamp land.

[PurpleFloyd]

They can't do any current studies because there aren't any does left

[SmellEsox]

I'm right, of course

But in all seriousness, the current systems of restrictions are the most democratic. In most cases they allow the hunter the freedom to shoot what they are satisfied with.

What grinds my gears is I can virtually guarantee you that 90% of the guys/gals pushing APR legislation are the same ones who biatch about liberals always wanting to create new laws because they think they know what's best for everyone.

But that's another topic for another day. In general I don't see anything wrong with the concept of reviewing the current way the DNR calculates population levels and harvest goals. Nothing may change, but it's worth exploring.

It is not the most democratic if one group's harvest eliminates the other group's ability to harvest what they want. In other words, there ain't huntable numbers of big bucks under current deer management.

[SmellEsox]

Yes. In theory if you had a large enough population all hunters would be more satisfied. But as we've experienced that typically swings the pendulum to where insurance companies, forest industry, farmers, etc. wouldn't be.

And the proof of that is where?

[smsmith]

And the proof of that is where?

In all the DNR generated propaganda (i.e. press releases) issued when they made the decision (Grund and Cornicelli being "they") the herd was going to be reduced. The DNR was/continues to be very effective in swaying MN deer hunters to the line of thinking they (the DNR) wants. I give them credit, they did a great job "brainwashing" the citizens of this state.

[flipper]

It is not the most democratic if one group's harvest eliminates the other group's ability to harvest what they want. In other words, there ain't huntable numbers of big bucks under current deer management.

And if another group only wants to shoot buck's that are 14 points or greater than I suppose, according to your reasoning, it is undemocratic of anyone to shoot anything having less than 14 points. Crazy talk inspired by watching too many fenced in hunting shows.

[Getanet]

Yes. In theory if you had a large enough population all hunters would be more satisfied. But as we've experienced that typically swings the pendulum to where insurance companies, forest industry, farmers, etc. wouldn't be.

[smsmith]

I believe Ssmith has posted ad nauseam (no offense) about farmers and insurance companies having too large of a seat at the table during the population setting process.

Guilty as charged

[SmellEsox]

And if another group only wants to shoot buck's that are 14 points or greater than I suppose, according to your reasoning, it is undemocratic of anyone to shoot anything having less than 14 points. Crazy talk inspired by watching too many fenced in hunting shows.

No. I'm just saying I think there is a management scheme out there somewhere that provides opportunities for both meat and big buck hunters. What we have now leaves one group w/o. How is that democratic when one group has virtually no opportunity to hunt big bucks, while the other group can shoot anything they want?

[smsmith]

Not replying to anyone in particular, but would like to point out to anyone willing to read/listen: hunters can improve hunting here without the DNR doing anything. It would require a change of mindset for the great majority however. Deer hunting needs to be more about the overall experience and less about how much venison you put in the freezer each year. If more hunters would start exercising some trigger restraint and educating themselves about the condition of the deer herd in the area(s) they hunt it could have a huge impact. Even small property owners can make differences in how the herd looks (numbers and ages of both sexes). There are a few examples of co-ops composed of landowners around the state where they have done just such a thing.

I don't envision this ever happening on a large scale in MN....just want to say that it could.

[SmellEsox]

Dude, I basically agreed with everything you posted above, and now you're disagree with me an want proof. I believe Ssmith has posted ad nauseam (no offense) about farmers and insurance companies having too large of a seat at the table during the population setting process.

Sorry bro. I understand that we can't let the population get too high. But where that level is is the key.

[leech~~]

Big Buck hunting is over rated!

You can't eat Antlers!

The DNR can't count to 2 how do they know the Deer population!

All little bucks should be shot on the spot!!

The woods should be flooded for Duck hunting!

Oh, um sorry. I thought I was someone else for a minute there?

[PurpleFloyd]

In all the DNR generated propaganda (i.e. press releases) issued when they made the decision (Grund and Cornicelli being "they") the herd was going to be reduced. The DNR was/continues to be very effective in swaying MN deer hunters to the line of thinking they (the DNR) wants. I give them credit, they did a great job "brainwashing" the citizens of this state.

OK

I tried to post with a little humor but this was funnier. I concede.

[PurpleFloyd]

Not replying to anyone in particular, but would like to point out to anyone willing to read/listen: hunters can improve hunting here without the DNR doing anything. It would require a change of mindset for the great majority however. Deer hunting needs to be more about the overall experience and less about how much venison you put in the freezer each year. If more hunters would start exercising some trigger restraint and educating themselves about the condition of the deer herd in the area(s) they hunt it could have a huge impact. Even small property owners can make differences in how the herd looks (numbers and ages of both sexes). There are a few examples of co-ops composed of landowners around the state where they have done just such a thing.

I don't envision this ever happening on a large scale in MN....just want to say that it could.

I agree. If more would just relax,enjoy the outdoors and understand every deer is a trophy this would be a more fun experience for everyone.

[matchset]

Makes a guy wonder how the MINNESOTA MOOSE POPULATION is being counted. I have my own opinions but they're not scientific. I only spend countless hours in the woods every month.

[SmellEsox]

I agree. If more would just relax,enjoy the outdoors and understand every deer is a trophy this would be a more fun experience for everyone.

I would say that most guys love and cherish and value every deer. I do. I don't think every one is a trophy however. And despite the fact that I want to see more deer and more big deer, I do relax and enjoy the outdoors. In fact, that is how I recharge. Getting up in a tree or out in the boat and enjoying nature. Unfortunately I have to go to other states to get my big deer fix or enjoy an experience where you see deer just about every sit. It is amazing how much more fun hunting is when you anticipate that the next deer you see might be a big one. Just the anticipation is amazing. When you hunt here, you got to have extremely low expectations. Just be happy when you see a deer. I don't think I could hunt deer if it was just about filling the freezer. I do enjoy venison, (which I'm almost out of) but it's not my main motivation for hunting.

[BLACKJACK]

It is not the most democratic if one group's harvest eliminates the other group's ability to harvest what they want. In other words, there ain't huntable numbers of big bucks under current deer management.

And all the photos that we see of hunters with big bucks every fall are photo-shopped, right?? Because there aren't any big bucks running around MN??!

With the current system, the DNR will be able to bring the population back, and then every deer hunter will be able to get what they want, whether its a deer in the freezer or a big big buck - the big buck guys just have to work a little harder, but they CAN get what they want.

If the APR guys have their way, you would have a situation where in a lottery zone, if a deer hunter doesn't get a doe permit, and doesn't see a buck with the required antler tines, they're not going to be able to shoot a deer that year. Is that fair, just because the APR guys need a big buck, and don't want to put in the time to hunt one down??

If I set my goal to run a 3:10 marathon I would expect to put in the time and effort to run that time, I wouldn't look for the race directors to restrict the rest of the runners just so I can achieve my goal. The same deal applies to big buck hunters, get out and put in the time and effort, don't restrict your fellow deer hunters!!!!

Sorry smsmith to hijack your thread but you know and I know that once the population comes back the APR drumbeat will start up again.

[smsmith]

It is amazing how much more fun hunting is when you anticipate that the next deer you see might be a big one. Just the anticipation is amazing. When you hunt here, you got to have extremely low expectations. Just be happy when you see a deer.

Yup, I never sat down in my tree stand when I bowhunted on my old place in WI because I always wanted to be completely ready to shoot. Here, I rarely stand up I knew that hunting here was not going to be the "same" as in WI...but I had zero idea just how "different" it was going to be. Pretty sad IMHO. My habitat and the surrounding habitat here is far superior to what I had there...yet...seeing a deer is an infrequent experience. Seeing a mature buck? Good luck

[BLACKJACK]

I agree. If more would just relax,enjoy the outdoors and understand every deer is a trophy this would be a more fun experience for everyone.

Agreed!!! Even after shooting a doe I have some regrets - but I feel better after thinking about some of those wonderful venison chops off the grill!!

[smsmith]

Sorry smsmith to hijack your thread but you know and I know that once the population comes back the APR drumbeat will start up again.

No apology necessary (not really my thread anyway). You are most likely correct. I'd guess in another 2-3 years the APR issue will become topical again. From reading ODN, it sounds like the APR drums may start getting beat in SW MN sooner than that.

All I can say is that I will not be beating those drums. The DNR uses APRs as a tool to manipulate hunters. They've learned that by getting the "big buck" guys on their "side" they can whack the craap out of the doe herd with fewer voices against their management. Its a "win/win" for the DNR. Get lower (or maintain them) deer densities and fewer hunters speaking out against the Dept.

[Bear55]

If I set my goal to run a 3:10 marathon I would expect to put in the time and effort to run that time, I wouldn't look for the race directors to restrict the rest of the runners just so I can achieve my goal. The same deal applies to big buck hunters, get out and put in the time and effort, don't restrict your fellow deer hunters!!!!

Lots of truth here. Mature bucks are a different animal, you can't hunt them like regular deer. You have to go out and find them on their terms, sitting around and waiting for one to show up out of the blue might work once every 20 years or so.

[96trigger]

Dennis Anderson has an article in the Strib about the audit. I am not confident in the responses by our new big game coordinator. I don't want to be critical of the DNR, but there is a problem somewhere. They keep using computer models that should work, but they are not correlating to what the people in the field are actually seeing. I guess the fact that they are looking into it shows something.

[SmellEsox]

Lots of truth here. Mature bucks are a different animal, you can't hunt them like regular deer. You have to go out and find them on their terms, sitting around and waiting for one to show up out of the blue might work once every 20 years or so.

I won't argue. But when you can go hunt neighboring states on public land and see them it makes you wonder. Are mature bucks here smarter than mature bucks in other states for some reason? Is there a smart gene in MN deer? I just think they are much rarer in MN and the average hunter has very little if any access to hunting them. They shouldn't be that rare.