Expected worst Deer harvest in 20 years!

[smsmith]

That's not what Leslie wrote to me when I asked her about cross tagging/party hunting. There's no way the DNR wants to alienate a large portion of the hunting public by banning cross-tagging. The only reason they would even consider it is because some of the groups that whine like toddlers bend their ear every chance they get, while most of us have better things to do with our time than worry about how we can ruin someone else's hunt to improve ours.

Right. The DNR won't be the "front man" for such a change. They'll use other groups to lead the charge and take the negative press, but no way does any change occur (in SE MN or anywhere else in the state) without the DNR encouraging those changes to take place.

MWA would have liked to push an expansion of the no buck crosstagging/party hunting this year, but backed off because the DNR told them the time wasn't right. Pretty sure when the "time is right" that it will be right because the DNR is ready to participate in backing such a change.

If you read the article in ODN awhile back, it appeared to me the DNR is getting ready to push some type of YBP in SW MN. They aren't conducting surveys about doing that for kicks and giggles...they're doing that in order to gauge support for such a move.

[96trigger]

Quote:

But your report was that you don't talk to hunters in Zone 3 that don't like hunting there with the APR's, and I tried to give my report of talking to former Zone 3 hunters who gave up hunting there do to APR's to try to give the full picture not just one side. Are the folks that I talked to the minority? Probably. Do they not exist? Nope.

STOP putting words in my mouth. I talk to LOT's of hunters, in the school, at teh gas station, at the local supermarket, at the registration shop. NOT just those that are for APR. In all those encounters, not once did someone say anything negative. I am not so obtuse to think that those that are opposed don't exist, they do, I am aware of that. What I am saying is that there are plenty of people passing judgement on it and they have never even hunted down here, or stuck around long enough to see the effects of it. This is the exact reason I quit commenting on this as well. There are vultures on this site that circle and wait for APR to get brought up and then swoop in to bash on it, many of whom have not stepped foot in an APR zone, or talked to anyone in the 300 zone, to see what it's about. That is what I have the issue with.

You never answered my questions on your sources either, and you don't have to because I don't want to start this pi$$ing match all over again. You have talked to people that used to hunt down here. I know lots of people that used to hunt but have quit for various reasons other than APR, time and family just being a couple reasons.

[creepworm]

You think other states are having shifts that dramatic???

Yes. SD reduced permits by over 50% this year. There are a total of 50 permits for the county I live in. 50

[PurpleFloyd]

Okay guys, I'm about done arguing with you all. But...one more question for those of you who say to let the DNR do what they do and roll with it.

When (not if) the DNR begins a push for expansion of APRs and an end to crosstagging/party hunting for bucks will you have the same stance?

I will go out on a limb and say that is the day you suddenly become their biggest fan and scrutiny of density models will go right out the window.

[creepworm]

Since I'm able to manage my chunk of land the way I wish, I'd wager that I enjoy my stand time more than many.

So you are complaining just for the sake of complaining?

[smsmith]

I will go out on a limb and say that is the day you suddenly become their biggest fan and scrutiny of density models will go right out the window.

Hope you're not a fat man, because you're on a skinny limb. I am no proponent of APRs...at least not how they're implemented here. The reason the DNR will push an expansion of APRs is that they see an opportunity to further their agenda (reduced deer numbers) while also building a strong support base with a group of deer hunters (those who want more bigger bucks). SW MN is ripe for just that type of expansion now. I'll go out on that limb with you and predict APRs are expanded in that part of MN within the next 5-7 years.

Plenty of QDMA chapters will jump on board the APR expansion bandwagon because they see a chance for better big buck hunting. If they're smart, they'll get out ahead of the "reduce the doe herd" part of APRs that is included when the DNR pushes the expansion. If so, they'll not only have plenty of deer to hunt, but they'll also have more mature bucks around.

[smsmith]

So you are complaining just for the sake of complaining?

I'm complaining because deer hunting in central MN could be borderline world class. Its never going to be southern IA, but it could certainly be on par with most of WI. Why deer hunters here are just fine with the status quo baffles me. Striving for excellence/betterment is not a bad thing.

[Fever]

Hey all, a little late to your party, but, I'll chirp in here. Ok. So I hunted last weekend (Sat,Sun,Mon,Tues) in zone 197 on north shore of Leech. I have several nice shooters on camera from this past summer / fall that are targets and 2 nice bucks on the wall from that very spot/trail, and have hunted there for pas 8 years since I left the southern farming areas I grew up in. In those 8 years I've shot 0 does,5 bucks with the last 2 going on the wall and the one year between those two - I had a 70yd shot at a 150 inch plus bruiser but, too thick of brush and a 30-06 round being deflected settled that encounter.

Anyway, last weekend, I sat 11 hours on Sat, 11 on Sun, 10 on Monday and another 5.5 on Tues before driving the 4.25 hours back home. I saw a grand total of 0 deer. But, in full disclosure; I have an understanding of what could happen up there and the reality of it is this -the population in Northern Mn isn't and never has been as dense as the whitetail population in southern Mn let alone Iowa,southern Wisconsin,etc. BUT, the year class dynamics are different and thus need mentioning. Basically I see it as - If I want quality instead of quantity in most of Mn, I likely need to go to a place where a buck has a shot at attaining age 4-5 plus. South central Mn farmland crop fields, drainage ditches,and small groves - is not that place.(not that it doesn't happen / just the odds is what I'm talking about). Some southern Mn river bottom land is different as those areas offer large uninterrupted expanses of cover and sanctuary. For the most part - The forests of northern Mn are an area for a shot at very mature bucks simply based on the lack of accessibility to the masses and the fact there is simply less pressure per hunt able acre of land. But again, winters are more harsh,snow is deeper and lasts longer, wolves and other predators more plentiful, and food not as. I am a 13 year HS Biology teacher and I fully understand population dynamics and the many variables that are being discussed and argued on this thread. A few things to add to the discussion; 2 back to back very severe long, cold, winters with deep snow that lasted well into the spring in the North woods. For what it's worth, Wolves are and have always been in the picture. Long before a man lived on this continent. Heck, our ancestral hunter gatherers likely learned many things about hunting from the wolf. The wolf is part of the equation but is really more like a scape goat in reality. The problems are people pressure and really - primarily climate. Wolves are much better adapt at running through deep snow than whitetails - so their success rate of their hunts likely improved by quite a bit over the past 26 ish months. Higher success, more pups, more pups, more demand for meat - that coupled with less food availability for the deer, and hungry bears coming out of hibernation in the spring right at fawning time, and we get what we are seeing today. There are lower numbers, there will be lower numbers again next year as this winter is shaping up to be bad. We are the wildcard as you can count on the wolf doing what the wolf does, the bear doing what the bear does, and the weather being the weather. If you want to see a change in the world - be that change. If lack of numbers is a big deal to you, simply stop shooting deer for a couple years or be aware that you may not see many due to the state of current circumstances. I will continue to hunt the North woods because I love peace, the lack of pressure, the total remoteness, as well as the potential. To sum it up - I'm going for the Home run up there and when you go for home runs you increase the chances that you strike out. I know that going in so - no biggy. this year - "literally".

[96trigger]

Good post Fever, our degrees and occupations are the same, and I agree with pretty much everything you said.

[Getanet]

If they're smart, they'll get out ahead of the "reduce the doe herd" part of APRs that is included when the DNR pushes the expansion.

How do you propose they do that...ignore reality? One of the primary goals of APR is to put less pressure on bucks by putting more pressure on does.

[Eric Wettschreck]

SW MN is ripe for just that type of expansion now. I'll go out on that limb with you and predict APRs are expanded in that part of MN within the next 5-7 years.

I'll bet you a dinner this doesn't happen. I like my Ribeye medium rare.

Land owners in SW MN far outnumber deer hunters. The large majority of land owners out here consider deer "Field rats" and want them gone. All of them. All gone. Not one left. They could give a flippin diddly rip about trophy bucks and antler size. A couple of the places I hunt the land owners say shoot them all. What you don't tag just leave there for dead.

No way it happens and I'll put a Ribeye with a side of hash browns and a few beers to wash it down.

[smsmith]

How do you propose they do that...ignore reality? One of the primary goals of APR is to put less pressure on bucks by putting more pressure on does.

That's one of the primary goals of APR from the DNR's standpoint....not necessarily from the hunters' standpoint.

APRs are simply a "poor man's QDM". Seeing as the average hunter isn't going to educate themselves enough in order to be able to age a buck on the hoof, APRs are about the easiest way to implement some type of age restriction. APRs are not QDM...there's much more to it than simply how many points a buck has on one side of its head.

QDM doesn't teach over harvest of does...it teaches an adequate harvest of does. I practice QDM on my property and will not shoot a doe...because none should be harvested here.

Where most folks get caught up is in the perceived "need" of killing something. They paid their $30 and by God...something is gonna die to justify that expense. Unless the only 3.5 year old buck I've got on cam shows up here in the next couple of days, my freezer will remain devoid of venison. Somehow or another, I'll make it through the next year though.

[smsmith]

I'll bet you a dinner this doesn't happen. I like my Ribeye medium rare.

Land owners in SW MN far outnumber deer hunters. The large majority of land owners out here consider deer "Field rats" and want them gone. All of them. All gone. Not one left. They could give a flippin diddly rip about trophy bucks and antler size. A couple of the places I hunt the land owners say shoot them all. What you don't tag just leave there for dead.

No way it happens and I'll put a Ribeye with a side of hash browns and a few beers to wash it down.

Maybe you're right, maybe not.

APRs can be "sold" to landowners as a way to reduce the herd...exactly what you're saying most of them want. In fact, areas like you describe are the "ripest" for expansion. Get some hunters on board via the "big buck" results of APRs and landowners on board via the herd reduction that inherently follows the implementation of APRs. The only group who gets left out is the "average Joe" deer hunter who is happy shooting the first buck they see.

[PurpleFloyd]

Right. The DNR won't be the "front man" for such a change. They'll use other groups to lead the charge and take the negative press, but no way does any change occur (in SE MN or anywhere else in the state) without the DNR encouraging those changes to take place.

MWA would have liked to push an expansion of the no buck crosstagging/party hunting this year, but backed off because the DNR told them the time wasn't right. Pretty sure when the "time is right" that it will be right because the DNR is ready to participate in backing such a change.

If you read the article in ODN awhile back, it appeared to me the DNR is getting ready to push some type of YBP in SW MN. They aren't conducting surveys about doing that for kicks and giggles...they're doing that in order to gauge support for such a move.

Well, if things are like you claim they are then it probably is fair to assume they are also behind the MDDI and the whole push to drop permit numbers in the State as well. In that case we all know who their operatives are.

[96trigger]

The DNR sold APR's in the southeast as a deer management tool. I was at some meetings when they were talking about using it to reduce the deer herd. I read plenty of literature on it as well. If what you are saying is true about the landowners wanting all the deer dead, then passing APR will not be terribly difficult. APR's did reduce the deer herd, enough that they are now backing off some of the liberal tags, which I think is good, but not enough that deer hunting down here is bad at all, it is still very good. I think another year or two of intensive harvest coupled with tough winters would have decimated the population and APR's would have been scrapped and managing for population would have had to take precedent. There are plenty of posts previous to this that blame the crash of the deer population on the buck management crowd pushing for the taking of does instead of small bucks.

[PurpleFloyd]

That's one of the primary goals of APR from the DNR's standpoint....not necessarily from the hunters' standpoint.

APRs are simply a "poor man's QDM". Seeing as the average hunter isn't going to educate themselves enough in order to be able to age a buck on the hoof, APRs are about the easiest way to implement some type of age restriction. APRs are not QDM...there's much more to it than simply how many points a buck has on one side of its head.

QDM doesn't teach over harvest of does...it teaches an adequate harvest of does. I practice QDM on my property and will not shoot a doe...because none should be harvested here.

Where most folks get caught up is in the perceived "need" of killing something. They paid their $30 and by God...something is gonna die to justify that expense. Unless the only 3.5 year old buck I've got on cam shows up here in the next couple of days, my freezer will remain devoid of venison. Somehow or another, I'll make it through the next year though.

all that QDM stuff works great on large tracks of private land. Just as Tiffany. It doesn't work on public land when the DNR and state have a history of letting anyone buy a license and hunt if they want to. To get to your utopia the State either needs to limit ALL deer harvested through a lottery type system where a limited number of licenses are sold or they need to sell off the public lands to be made into ranches.

[PurpleFloyd]

Hey all, a little late to your party, but, I'll chirp in here. Ok. So I hunted last weekend (Sat,Sun,Mon,Tues) in zone 197 on north shore of Leech. I have several nice shooters on camera from this past summer / fall that are targets and 2 nice bucks on the wall from that very spot/trail, and have hunted there for pas 8 years since I left the southern farming areas I grew up in. In those 8 years I've shot 0 does,5 bucks with the last 2 going on the wall and the one year between those two - I had a 70yd shot at a 150 inch plus bruiser but, too thick of brush and a 30-06 round being deflected settled that encounter.

Anyway, last weekend, I sat 11 hours on Sat, 11 on Sun, 10 on Monday and another 5.5 on Tues before driving the 4.25 hours back home. I saw a grand total of 0 deer. But, in full disclosure; I have an understanding of what could happen up there and the reality of it is this -the population in Northern Mn isn't and never has been as dense as the whitetail population in southern Mn let alone Iowa,southern Wisconsin,etc. BUT, the year class dynamics are different and thus need mentioning. Basically I see it as - If I want quality instead of quantity in most of Mn, I likely need to go to a place where a buck has a shot at attaining age 4-5 plus. South central Mn farmland crop fields, drainage ditches,and small groves - is not that place.(not that it doesn't happen / just the odds is what I'm talking about). Some southern Mn river bottom land is different as those areas offer large uninterrupted expanses of cover and sanctuary. For the most part - The forests of northern Mn are an area for a shot at very mature bucks simply based on the lack of accessibility to the masses and the fact there is simply less pressure per hunt able acre of land. But again, winters are more harsh,snow is deeper and lasts longer, wolves and other predators more plentiful, and food not as. I am a 13 year HS Biology teacher and I fully understand population dynamics and the many variables that are being discussed and argued on this thread. A few things to add to the discussion; 2 back to back very severe long, cold, winters with deep snow that lasted well into the spring in the North woods. For what it's worth, Wolves are and have always been in the picture. Long before a man lived on this continent. Heck, our ancestral hunter gatherers likely learned many things about hunting from the wolf. The wolf is part of the equation but is really more like a scape goat in reality. The problems are people pressure and really - primarily climate. Wolves are much better adapt at running through deep snow than whitetails - so their success rate of their hunts likely improved by quite a bit over the past 26 ish months. Higher success, more pups, more pups, more demand for meat - that coupled with less food availability for the deer, and hungry bears coming out of hibernation in the spring right at fawning time, and we get what we are seeing today. There are lower numbers, there will be lower numbers again next year as this winter is shaping up to be bad. We are the wildcard as you can count on the wolf doing what the wolf does, the bear doing what the bear does, and the weather being the weather. If you want to see a change in the world - be that change. If lack of numbers is a big deal to you, simply stop shooting deer for a couple years or be aware that you may not see many due to the state of current circumstances. I will continue to hunt the North woods because I love peace, the lack of pressure, the total remoteness, as well as the potential. To sum it up - I'm going for the Home run up there and when you go for home runs you increase the chances that you strike out. I know that going in so - no biggy. this year - "literally".

One of the best posts ever on this forum.

[smsmith]

Well, if things are like you claim they are then it probably is fair to assume they are also behind the MDDI and the whole push to drop permit numbers in the State as well. In that case we all know who their operatives are.

Good stuff right there P.F.

Believe whatever you choose, but if you believe that changes get made to deer management in MN without the DNR and/or legislature pushing them...you're fooling yourself. Science and biology have taken a backseat, its all about social pressures now.

[smsmith]

all that QDM stuff works great on large tracks of private land. Just as Tiffany. It doesn't work on public land when the DNR and state have a history of letting anyone buy a license and hunt if they want to. To get to your utopia the State either needs to limit ALL deer harvested through a lottery type system where a limited number of licenses are sold or they need to sell off the public lands to be made into ranches.

Total falsehood. QDM would and can work on any property. Public or private. It all is dependent on what the users (hunters) want. I've never owned a "large" tract of land, but have seen what QDM can do...even on small properties.

There'd be no reason to limit the number of hunters, only what those hunters are able to kill.

[Getanet]

Total falsehood. QDM would and can work on any property. Public or private. It all is dependent on what the users (hunters) want. I've never owned a "large" tract of land, but have seen what QDM can do...even on small properties.

There'd be no reason to limit the number of hunters, only what those hunters are able to kill.

A huge component of QDM is land manipulation. Adding food plots, winter cover, etc. None of which a hunter can do on public land. And the DNR isn't going to add food plots to public land or plant anything that can't be cut and sold.

[smsmith]

A huge component of QDM is land manipulation. Adding food plots, winter cover, etc. None of which a hunter can do on public land. And the DNR isn't going to add food plots to public land or plant anything that can't be cut and sold.

Absolutely true.

The DNR will do whatever they're told to do by their bosses. i.e. the people we elect. Their bosses told them to open up public land to private grazing...so they did it. Their bosses told them to spend more money on eliminating trees in grasslands...so they did it. If their bosses told them to manage the deer herd differently (which I'm pretty sure is the reason for our current season permit structure) then they'll do it.

Heck, MN DOT pays farmers to leave corn stand through the winter to act as a snow/wind break. Things can be done...its just a matter of whether enough people care to get them done.

[BearA]

I think a lot of people take for granted how nice we have it in Minnesota, basically if you're over twelve, have a heartbeat and 31 dollars you can obtain a deer licence. APR's and party hunting aren't going to solve the herd management problem. If people really want to see change, how about the DNR closes firearm season for a year or make firearm season a strict lottery for a year or two. For many people firearms season is a "tradition" and once you start interfering with someones "tradition" it might make them take a step back and think about how their hunting practices impact their local deer herd. I mean look at the fires Christmas and Easter have lit under some people in our schools. And for the guy who's going to say "well if you impose strict regulations on the firearm season, you have to do the same for archery and muzzle loader". No, you don't. Deer harvested via archery and muzzle loader account for what 25-30 percent of the total deer harvested in Minnesota and I don't know many archers that shoot the first fawn or 1.5 yr old buck that walks by. Like the old saying goes- you don't know how much you appreciate something until its gone.

[CaptainMusky]

Where most folks get caught up is in the perceived "need" of killing something. They paid their $30 and by God...something is gonna die to justify that expense.

You've just proved my point from my last two posts. Thanks. Looks like you are coming around.

[Fever]

[Getanet]

And for the guy who's going to say "well if you impose strict regulations on the firearm season, you have to do the same for archery and muzzle loader". No, you don't.

It's funny you mention that. You know who pushes for most of the changes that create so much debate, friction and animosity among firearms hunters? The guys who fling arrows from September - December. Yeah, I know most of them rifle hunt too. But I think spending four months alone by themselves up in a tree gives them too much time to come up with bad ideas - particularly ones that conveniently have little impact on bow hunting, if any at all.