Camp Ripley deer hunt results-stories from 1st season?

[SmellEsox]

Don't know how much of it is hunted, but using your numbers

1200 hunters/83 sq. miles = 14.5 hunters per sq. mile. A figure very much in line with hunter densities in much of central MN.

Remember that for the last several years there were 2500 permits given for each hunt. 5000 total permits. I think I figured it out that there was about 15-17 acres per hunter for each hunt once dud areas were subtracted out.

[Getanet]

i kind of ask how the heck does anyone ever shoot a mature buck out of this hunt at all?

I'm with you. 1,200+ hunters all descending on the woods at once, no advanced scouting permitted, and you can only use a bow. It's really surprising the success they've had in past years.

[rkhinrichs]

how many "trophy bucks" were taken this year?

[Wanderer]

Don't know anything about inches of antler but I'm sure I'd be happy with either of the 207 pound bucks that were taken in the first season.

Personally I've seen some good bucks doing some interesting things at Ripley and it's one of the reasons I like the place. I've also shot at probably the biggest buck of my life there. I got rattled when he and another good buck and doe came huffing in and stopped at 22 yards. I got a big string slap on my coat sleave when I shot and the arrow passed just in front of his chest. I just shook for a while afterward, repeating "that was a $&@"! Big buck!

There's plenty of luck involved for most to get a shot at a dream buck but it can happen in any place at any time there. Some guys have been fortunate enough to land in a sweet spot that offers opportunity for many years.

[eyeguy 54]

it's like playing the lotto. went 2 times years ago. lotta fun and a couple almosts on dandy deer.

[Walleyehooker]

Not much different than the rest of the state. Over harvest,poor management,wolves or hard winters or maybe a combination of all who knows. I know it was definitely cooler last year during the hunts. Funny thing during the youth hunt I saw more deer on the roads driving out than I ever have but less in the woods. Going back this weekend with a different strategy in mind. Ill hold out for a decent buck or a large doe but its open season for the 3 grandsons.

[Cheetah]

I was on the fence about going due to how crappy the previous hunt was. My Dad bought his MN tag already and I decided to pick mine up too. I don't have plans or time to do any other MN hunts this year, so if any deer is dumb enough to walk past me this weekend it is going to get an arrow. Spike bucks taste good so I'll be happy to take one of those.

Hopefully more hunters decide not to go, frees up a lot of space to scout and try new spots if our usual area doesn't have much sign in it.

[Jameson]

I'm with you. 1,200+ hunters all descending on the woods at once, no advanced scouting permitted, and you can only use a bow. It's really surprising the success they've had in past years.

Once upon a time I read about the early hunts at Camp Ripley. It was figured out that with a low hunter density hunt the hunters don't have much of a chance. Cram the hunters in and the overall success rate goes way up.

[BuckmasterG]

Reading through this thread I think everyone has valid points and viable opinions of Ripley and the way it is structured or mananaged.

My personal experiences with Beau has been nothing short of exceptional. He has always replied promptly to any and all of my Todd & Morrison county public land questions. He has even gone above and beyond that to supply me with other useful and helpful information regarding those properties. Do I think he is the problem? No. I do think the MN DNR is charging an awful lot for application fees for a hunt that you aren't guaranteed to get into, but as long as they are using the money wisley to help our outdoor community, I can't complain. The number of hunters allowed into camp could be a factor, but it could also be helping hunters see more deer by keeping them on their feet.

I have been hunting Ripley for about 10 years and I can say honestly that every hunt except last years' and maybe one other, have been good enough to satisfy my expectations. I believe our group has taken 1 deer or more almost every year (accepted) and besides last year, have seen some decent bucks each time. Last year we did notice many more wolf tracks than any other year before. Talking to others from the area and even further north, it sounds like the wolves are demolishing the deer population. In another thread, someone mentioned they figured Riply had possibly 50 wolves that according to DNR eat something like 20 deer/each per year. According to those numbers, I'd say wolves are the biggest influence. Maybe add a lottery hunt for those.. Anyway, add in a couple bad winters, things change. Like anything in this world. There will be good years and there will be bad. Regardless, I will be going back up to Ripley this weekend not only for the shot at a nice buck or a bonus doe, but a get away with my buddies.

Happy Hunting,

"May the Odds Forever Be In Your Favor"

[ZachD]

I have been going to Camp Ripley to train for 20 years. At no time was I ever hindered by deer while training. Even back in the day when deer were thick and it was nothing to see does with triplets.

If you are on a live fire range you keep shooting. If a deer happened to walk in the way, to bad for the deer.

If a deer walked on the impact area and it was time to send rounds downrange, good luck.

It doesn't work that way anymore cease fire when any animal in on the range.

[SmellEsox]

Theres 2 packs in camp. Total of 12-16 wolves.

[B. Amish]

Once upon a time I read about the early hunts at Camp Ripley. It was figured out that with a low hunter density hunt the hunters don't have much of a chance. Cram the hunters in and the overall success rate goes way up.

I would agree the number of harvested deer goes up, but can't imagine percent of success does. So, to keep population in balance they are forced to cram a small town of bowhunters out there at once. Almost an organized unorganized deer drive.

My point is that many people seek out this hunt because it's known that the place holds huge bucks. That's what attracts a fair number of the hunters. But, 1-2,000 hunters walking around at daybreak. Setting up metal stands. Getting light out and you can see 2 guys from your spot. Many folks changing spots throughout the day. The only way to harvest a mature buck in there is happenstance. Many more bucks die of old age in there than by arrow.

And the wolves have been there for at least 15 years.

[Jameson]

...I would agree the number of harvested deer goes up, but can't imagine percent of success does....

That is the crazy unexpected thing, success rate does go up.....to a point. Once the hunter density gets to be too high then there will be a decline, but at a certain medium-high hunter density the success rate is higher than at a very low hunter density rate. The organized unorganized deer drive saying is fairly accurate.

[laker1]

Would be interesting if somebody knows if they seen much winter mortality there? 2012-2013 I heard a fair amount of deer died. Two long springs in a row. It is bad toward spring because there metabolism starts kicking in requiring more food.

I know past years these warm days,hunting would really slow down after a few hours in the morning.

[SmellEsox]

All I ever hear is that the only reason fewer deer are being shot is because fewer permits are being given out. Nothing in any DNR model says numbers are down. At least here in central MN.

[Wanderer]

Deer leave sign. There was little sign of 2014 activity in Ripley.

Unless the whole herd shifted to another place for the year, the numbers are off.

Plenty of long standing trails with no leaves turned over on them, 1 small fresh rub, no fresh scrapes aside from the one a 4 pointer was tending, lone does. It all tells a story if you observe it.

[smsmith]

All I ever hear is that the only reason fewer deer are being shot is because fewer permits are being given out. Nothing in any DNR model says numbers are down. At least here in central MN.

Lazy hunters...that's gonna be the DNR spin coming out of Ripley.

[sticknstring]

Lazy hunters...that's gonna be the DNR spin coming out of Ripley.

They used that one last year. It'll probably be the tested and true too warm & windy excuse again. Maybe winter severity & wolves will get a nod as well. The lazy hunter one was creative though - got to admit it!

[smsmith]

They used that one last year. It'll probably be the tested and true too warm & windy excuse again. Maybe winter severity & wolves will get a nod as well. The lazy hunter one was creative though - got to admit it!

I've already heard second hand reports from guys who were there and who talked to Beau that it will be used again this year...at least as one of the reasons. I have heard from one Camp official that they think winter may have been worse than they thought.

There are likely a few reasons why the Ripley hunt was way down this year. Just like it will be across the state. One of those reasons has been too liberal doe tag allotment....but I bet we won't see that stated by anyone from the DNR.

[laker1]

All I ever hear is that the only reason fewer deer are being shot is because fewer permits are being given out. Nothing in any DNR model says numbers are down. At least here in central MN.

Actually they(2013-2014) do show they are down,but past modeling estimates were way too high for what was actually out there in much of the state.

[Getanet]

I've already heard second hand reports from guys who were there and who talked to Beau that it will be used again this year...at least as one of the reasons. I have heard from one Camp official that they think winter may have been worse than they thought.

There are likely a few reasons why the Ripley hunt was way down this year. Just like it will be across the state. One of those reasons has been too liberal doe tag allotment....but I bet we won't see that stated by anyone from the DNR.

Ssmith, I wonder why you think it's so far fetched for the DNR to blame the weather for lower harvests? You hear that reasoning from hunters all the time. In fact, here is one of the Facebook posts from one of the admins on the MWA Facebook page after the first weekend, "That's a wrap, calling Ripley quites. 65 in the middle of Oct sets the deer down pretty good."

Approximately 70% of our state's deer harvest is opening weekend of the firearms season - and if we get bad weather that weekend it seems to be a legitimate reason for a lower harvest - not just an excuse.

One of the main things I remember about Opening Weekend last year was the high winds - at least in my area. Sitting in the stand felt like being on a ride at Valley Fair and the deer simply weren't moving unless pushed.

[smsmith]

Ssmith, I wonder why you think it's so far fetched for the DNR to blame the weather for lower harvests? You hear that reasoning from hunters all the time. In fact, here is one of the Facebook posts from one of the admins on the MWA Facebook page after the first weekend, "That's a wrap, calling Ripley quites. 65 in the middle of Oct sets the deer down pretty good."

Approximately 70% of our state's deer harvest is opening weekend of the firearms season - and if we get bad weather that weekend it seems to be a legitimate reason for a lower harvest - not just an excuse.

One of the main things I remember about Opening Weekend last year was the high winds - at least in my area. Sitting in the stand felt like being on a ride at Valley Fair and the deer simply weren't moving unless pushed.

When did I say weather doesn't have an impact on the harvest? What I believe I have said previously is that the impact stated by the DNR is (IMHO) exaggerated quite a bit. What weather events occurred this year during the Ripley hunts to drop the harvest as much as it dropped? 65 in mid October isn't that unusual of an occurrence....I'm sure it's happened previously...right?

[smsmith]

There are likely a few reasons why the Ripley hunt was way down this year. Just like it will be across the state. One of those reasons has been too liberal doe tag allotment....but I bet we won't see that stated by anyone from the DNR.

Note the bold^^^

"A few reasons"...I think most reasonable deer hunters recognize that the last two winters and spring of '13 took a toll on the deer herd in the northern 1/3-1/2 of the state. I think most reasonable deer hunters recognize that non-human predation is taking a toll on the herd in many areas.

I think most reasonable deer hunters also recognize that antlerless tag allocations have been far too liberal for far too long. I'd just like to hear that our DNR is reasonable and recognize this as well.

[Getanet]

I wasn't referring to this thread specifically. But generally I seem to recall you being very sarcastic as a reason the DNR might cite for a lower harvest.

As a justification for lower harvests over longer period of time I would agree it's not a sound reason, but describing any particular year it could be. Depends on the year.

[smsmith]

I wasn't referring to this thread specifically. But generally I seem to recall you being very sarcastic as a reason the DNR might cite for a lower harvest.

As a justification for lower harvests over longer period of time I would agree it's not a sound reason, but describing any particular year it could be. Depends on the year.

There's no doubt weather can play a role in harvest. It would take some serious talking to convince me that weather would impact more than a few percentage points on the harvest though...and the following year (assuming better weather) the harvest would likely be those few percentage points higher.

For the DNR to continue to use the same reasons (wind, rain, corn, hunter laziness) year after year after year to blame decreasing harvests...yes...I meet that type of B.S. with sarcasm.