Why not multiple bucks in managed/intensive harvest zones?

[leech~~]

On Sunday, October 30, 2016 at 7:08 AM, Satchmo said:

While maybe a little overdramatic, OTC is right about the rampant abuse in the system we have now, and the DNR has only made it easier. What will happen in the end like it always does, is that the ethical hunters will pay the price for the abusers. We only have a finite number of deer in MN and only so much pressure can be put on it before before that resource dwindles. Between party hunting, bonus tags, lic abuse, baiting, winter kill, predation, disease, trespassing, poaching, etc, etc, this herd is under constant pressure. Maybe what everyone should be asking themselves is: "What am I willing to give up to keep this herd healthy?" Instead of what's in it for me. No need to comment to me!  You need to look within for the answer to that one.

Sorry for replying back, but you did forget may be the second highest Deer kill during a year-road kill. Not sure if the DNR keeps a running count but from what I see each year it could be 1/4 of the herd.

[Satchmo]

PF,

You completely missed my point thru the fury that someone might be attacking your party hunting. Party hunting is NOT the problem. Neither is the trophy hunter. The problem is the total sum of all the pressures that our herd faces. The MN DNR has by self admission managed OUR herd by a social agenda and not sound biological data and has until now made very little attempt to collect timely data needed to react to what can be a quickly fluctuating population. My point was to ask yourself "What would you give up to help our herd the next time we have back to back severe winter that crash our herd numbers?" Will you refuse to fill every tag in camp because the herd numbers aren't what the DNR says they are? Or will you blindly fill every tag they say you can have? When the wolves, coyotes, and bears wipe out an entire generation of fawns in your area, are you going to lay off the does so they can rebound the herd, or are you going to fill every doe tag in camp? It is as much the responsibility of us hunters to protect the health of our deer, as it is the state agencies. For the record, I don't have a problem at all with party hunting as long as the herd stays healthy, but if you think that party hunting has less of an impact on our deer population than those trophy hunters, I feel you are severely misguided.

[delcecchi]

If by social agenda you mean limiting the herd to reduce damage to crops, and collisions with cars then I would agree.  But that is part of life.  The farmers are only going to tolerate so much damage to their crops, and many people don't like the high insurance rates and personal danger that comes with too many deer in the road.  

 

Not clear to me how folks looking for big bucks runs down the deer population either.   One buck, like one college boy, can take care of several does.   So most of the bucks are really surplus and have no effect on the herd if they end up in the freezer. 

 

And the southern half of the state doesn't have wolves or bears.  Not obvious that coyotes are a problem either with the number of deer around this area.    Up north might be different, although there seemed to be plenty of deer around cook this summer.  

[PurpleFloyd]

39 minutes ago, Satchmo said:

PF,

You completely missed my point thru the fury that someone might be attacking your party hunting. Party hunting is NOT the problem. Neither is the trophy hunter. The problem is the total sum of all the pressures that our herd faces. The MN DNR has by self admission managed OUR herd by a social agenda and not sound biological data and has until now made very little attempt to collect timely data needed to react to what can be a quickly fluctuating population. My point was to ask yourself "What would you give up to help our herd the next time we have back to back severe winter that crash our herd numbers?" Will you refuse to fill every tag in camp because the herd numbers aren't what the DNR says they are? Or will you blindly fill every tag they say you can have? When the wolves, coyotes, and bears wipe out an entire generation of fawns in your area, are you going to lay off the does so they can rebound the herd, or are you going to fill every doe tag in camp? It is as much the responsibility of us hunters to protect the health of our deer, as it is the state agencies. For the record, I don't have a problem at all with party hunting as long as the herd stays healthy, but if you think that party hunting has less of an impact on our deer population than those trophy hunters, I feel you are severely misguided.

No fury at all but your tone certainly sounds angry. I don't believe our group has ever filled all of our tags in the 38 years that I have hunted so I guess my answer is that if it was a down year we would more than likely take it a little easier since that has happened in the past.

 

Like I said, many solo hunters think the rest of the community owe them something and your post, while you try to disguise it is proof positive that you are more than willing to blame everyone else for any perceived problems with the deer herd.

 

Where I hunt the success ratio is tied directly to the corn harvest. Last year saw a lot of corn in the fields and a low harvest. We don't blame other hunters for challenging conditions. With the rain we got here this year there is literally thousands of acres of corn around and with that there is little to no danger of a hunter induced over harvest. 

 

The lord above provides what we need and whether the deer is big or small, the harvest is good or bad the best part of the hunt is spending and sharing time with friends and family.

 

Getting back to the original subject, the reason we have bonus tags in certain areas is that their population is higher than the target number. So with that reality it's hard to associate that practice with harming the health of the herd. Taking bucks with a bonus has less population impact long term than taking does but it might reduce the number of racks to look at. Is this the type of answer you were looking for?

Predation is a fact of life. A Coyote, Wolf or Bear has every bit as much biological right to take a deer as a hunter does. If they increase in population and take more deer then yes, we will need to harvest less unless we reduce the population of predators. 

 

What is your definition of herd health?

[Satchmo]

delcecchi,  MN has a very diverse range of habitat,  and each has its own unique set of management challenges now and in the future. Zone 1 has negligible farming, higher predator populations, and severe winters. SW MN has mostly ag, limited large tracts of timber, and typically high hunter success when crops are out. My north central transition zone 2 has lower fawn recruitment with all the wolves, coyotes, and bears. It also deals with occasional tough winters, and hay is the main crop. SE Minnesota is a mix of good ag ground, rough terrain and fertile soils with seemingly the best of everything, but the hunting pressure has been steadily increasing there. They are also at the highest risk for CWD and EHD. There are also many variations of these habitats across the state, and each needs to be managed differently. While the special interests deserve a spot at the table, I for one don't believe that the farmers or the insurance companies are basing their opinions on sound biological data or population estimates. They are stricly looking out for their bottom line. That is not a solid basis to manage our wildlife from. The DNR is ill equipped to deal with all the variables that effect the overall.  Some areas of the state are self sustaining, but in others, we as hunters need to take control of our own destiny and do what's right for the herd first and place our WANTS second. Sadly most guys won't. 

Edited November 1, 2016 by Satchmo

[Satchmo]

PF,

I blame noone for any challenges that I have and am not at all angry with anyone. I just have a different point of view on this than you do. That's all. What the DNR ultimately does probably affects my land less than most.  I bought my isolated land in north central MN on purpose knowing full well the challenges that would come with it. I also knew I would have no neighbors to speak of and would be able to do what was necessary to improve the health, nutrition, winter survival, and their ability to bounce back when nature throws a curveball. I see multiple deer on a typical day, and occasionally harvest one for the freezer. What I don't do is accept their "target number" as gospel or let the fact that there are bonus tags lull me in to thinking the poulation is fine. I trust my own feet on the ground far more than their computer model. Noone from the DNR, the insurance companies, or the farming lobby has ever set foot on my property. If your situation is good, then I am truly happy for you. I just think that everyone should be proactive in managing their own herd. 

Edited November 1, 2016 by Satchmo

[PurpleFloyd]

So the DNR is the problem? This sounds like the old audit the DNR crowd mindset of a few years ago. 

[Satchmo]

Did I say the DNR was the problem? No!  I said I think MN hunters should be more proactive about managing their herd.  Oh, and the DNR audit and subsequent results process is still going on.

[hockeybc69]

Quote

Sorry for replying back, but you did forget may be the second highest Deer kill during a year-road kill. Not sure if the DNR keeps a running count but from what I see each year it could be 1/4 of the herd.

 

Wow.... 25% of a herd the DNR estimates at "about a million deer" every year???? HAAAAAA. Might want to fact check that a little bit. 

That would be 250,000 deer a year....

Our registered harvest for all weapons is far far short of that.

I always love the arm chair "facts".

[delcecchi]

On 10/31/2016 at 10:09 PM, Satchmo said:

delcecchi,  MN has a very diverse range of habitat,  and each has its own unique set of management challenges now and in the future. Zone 1 has negligible farming, higher predator populations, and severe winters. SW MN has mostly ag, limited large tracts of timber, and typically high hunter success when crops are out. My north central transition zone 2 has lower fawn recruitment with all the wolves, coyotes, and bears. It also deals with occasional tough winters, and hay is the main crop. SE Minnesota is a mix of good ag ground, rough terrain and fertile soils with seemingly the best of everything, but the hunting pressure has been steadily increasing there. They are also at the highest risk for CWD and EHD. There are also many variations of these habitats across the state, and each needs to be managed differently. While the special interests deserve a spot at the table, I for one don't believe that the farmers or the insurance companies are basing their opinions on sound biological data or population estimates. They are stricly looking out for their bottom line. That is not a solid basis to manage our wildlife from. The DNR is ill equipped to deal with all the variables that effect the overall.  Some areas of the state are self sustaining, but in others, we as hunters need to take control of our own destiny and do what's right for the herd first and place our WANTS second. Sadly most guys won't. 

Well, the first significant question is why we manage wildlife, and deer in particular, in the first place.   The reason is to try to arrange to satisfy the demands of several disparate groups, with different groups having more or less say in different parts of the state.  

 

The foresters and the timber industry doesn't like deer eating all the seedling trees, especially white pine.  So they want fewer deer in their areas.   The hunters want lots of deer, and especially big bucks, but they want as many deer as the habitat can handle, so they can have success with harvesting one or more deer of their personal preference.   The farmers in general want fewer deer eating their crops.   Drivers and insurance companies would prefer fewer deer on the roads where they get hit by cars.   Biologists want to limit population to avoid wrecking the ecology and allowing CWD to spread easily and to not adversely affect other species (moose for example).   The DNR wants to keep all these groups happy or at least not totally angry so they, the DNR, get to keep their jobs.  

 

And they have to do it in the face of unpredictable hunting conditions and highly variable reproduction success, and the politicians and lawyers butting in for a variety of reasons.  Oh, and the DNR has limited information about the actual deer population in the various areas of the state.  

 

I don't envy the DNR deer management guys.   It is a tough job.   And I see more deer in my Rochester back yard in a week than I saw total while hunting east of Askov for years in the 60s.

 

 

Edited November 2, 2016 by delcecchi

[ANYFISH2]

Your just an DNR apologist!!

 

Good thoughts Del.

Nice post.

[Satchmo]

Well put Del! The problem with social management is that it hurts the interests of most hunters and their ability to be heard over the lobbyists for the timber industry, the farmers, the insurance companies, the biologists,  the politicians, and the lawyers. Those groups are very well organized, while hunters as a rule are very fragmented. The DNR is in the middle,  and I think they have bowed to the special interest, and left the MN sportsmen and women behind. 

[delcecchi]

On 11/2/2016 at 7:56 PM, Satchmo said:

Well put Del! The problem with social management is that it hurts the interests of most hunters and their ability to be heard over the lobbyists for the timber industry, the farmers, the insurance companies, the biologists,  the politicians, and the lawyers. Those groups are very well organized, while hunters as a rule are very fragmented. The DNR is in the middle,  and I think they have bowed to the special interest, and left the MN sportsmen and women behind. 

 

I don't think I agree with you, and we have seen that relatively small organizations of hunters or fishermen can have a pretty significant effect.  Look at the kow towing to the spearers due to the Darkhouse association, or to the Musky guys.  

 

What is it that you would have the DNR do differently, and where in the state are you unhappy about?   But it can't cost a lot more than what they are currently spending, and can't involve killing wolves.  

 

I am just wondering...    

[PurpleFloyd]

On 11/5/2016 at 8:37 PM, delcecchi said:

 

I don't think I agree with you, and we have seen that relatively small organizations of hunters or fishermen can have a pretty significant effect.  Look at the kow towing to the spearers due to the Darkhouse association, or to the Musky guys.  

 

What is it that you would have the DNR do differently, and where in the state are you unhappy about?   But it can't cost a lot more than what they are currently spending, and can't involve killing wolves.  

 

I am just wondering...    

I agree with Del. Take for example the handful of guys who were behind the DNR audit push a few years back. They hit the social media and forums hard pushing the idea that there were no nature deer left to shoot and that the DNR was all to blame. One of the guys on here( getanet?) Exposed them and their goal of using the audit to get the state to increase the deer herd because higher numbers were the only way they had a shot at getting statewide APR passed.

They made the push, they got the audit and to this day nothing has changed in the management yet even reading this forum it looks like lots of big deer are getting shot and numbers are high.

 

I just wonder how long before the statewide APR push kicks in now.

 

 

[delcecchi]

Purple, do you remember what the name of the group was?  Minnesota Deer Hunters or something? 

[PurpleFloyd]

23 minutes ago, delcecchi said:

Purple, do you remember what the name of the group was?  Minnesota Deer Hunters or something? 

Nope, didn't remember but looked it up. MDDI - the MN Deer Density Initiative.

 

[Wanderer]

35 minutes ago, PurpleFloyd said:

Nope, didn't remember but looked it up. MDDI - the MN Deer Density Initiative.

 

 

Yeah, that's the self help group...

[ANYFISH2]

And...what was wrong with the push MDDI had a couple of years ago?

I agreed then with push, and still do.  No reason for the liberal bag limits we've had in the past throughout the state.  In some areas it may be needed, but not like it was done for the decade prior.

 

If there is a push for APR in the future, I will stand against it.  That was always my stance. 

 

What MDDI accomplished was great for us hunters.  It created some veiled transparency, in the former of listening sessions, advisory groups, lowered bag limits (a bad winter help as well), and a hard look at the numbers the DNR was using in thier models.  Think they accomplished good things for all of us.

 

Just this guy's opinion.

[Wanderer]

I'm not saying nothing good was accomplished by the MDDI.  The push for the audit was one thing but I started getting tired of the criticism on the forums here when people posted they took a doe, or worse yet, a fawn.

 

There were some posters from MDDI that were at the edge of saying if it's not a 150 inch plus buck, you need to let it walk.

 

I think I might've asked them why they were even hunting until the herd came back.  

 

And thats just this guy's opinion. 

[ANYFISH2]

Yeah, this guy was certainly not one of them.  I didn't shoot any does myself, but that was my choice.  I will not tell others what to do with in the limits of the current law.  Like any group, organization you will have the more extreme outliers, there were a lot of good people trying to do the right thing for most.

[PurpleFloyd]

1 hour ago, ANYFISH2 said:

And...what was wrong with the push MDDI had a couple of years ago?

I agreed then with push, and still do.  No reason for the liberal bag limits we've had in the past throughout the state.  In some areas it may be needed, but not like it was done for the decade prior.

 

If there is a push for APR in the future, I will stand against it.  That was always my stance. 

 

What MDDI accomplished was great for us hunters.  It created some veiled transparency, in the former of listening sessions, advisory groups, lowered bag limits (a bad winter help as well), and a hard look at the numbers the DNR was using in thier models.  Think they accomplished good things for all of us.

 

Just this guy's opinion.

Not looking for an argument but what did they really accomplish? The audit has not had one thing implemented yet that could factor into the herd getting better. The deer harvest reports are looking like this could be one of the smaller harvests of the last decade and yet suddenly nobody is complaining about not seeing deer and there are lots of really nice deer being taken with the same system still in place.

 

It was proven without a shadow of doubt that the reason for the MDDI was specifically to come up with a way to first force the DNR to increase the herd so that they would not get backlash for statewide APR because hunters could take does and let smaller bucks pass. There is no disputing this fact as one of our members posted it from a forum directly from the guys who came up with the idea. It was basically like Wikileaks posting Hillary's emails.  That was their agenda and it was not only morally dishonest, they also went after fellow hunters who either disagreed with them or called them out on it like they took it right out of the Clinton playbook. 

 

BTW-Not directing at you in terms of the MDDI directly, just looking for what you think has actually gotten better as a result of the audit. In fact, I think it kinda backfired because the committees they wanted also are including some parties from forestry, ag and insurance that will limit what they are able to do. 

[PurpleFloyd]

Here is an old thread. Lots of my posts had the content censored and edited out but it has most of the players and might be interesting to revisit.

 

 

[ANYFISH2]

I carry no torch for MDDI, these are my own thoughts, take them for what they are.

 

I Believe MDDI accomplished an accelerated reduction of bag limits, because of the noise they made.  The same winter was harsh, but I do not believe the change would have been so stark or effective without the push.

 

The audit, it didn't really expect a lot to come of it in the first place.

That said, because of the audit the DNR is beginning a long range plan and revising Thier goal setting process.  Will much change? We will see.

As far as the committees having insurance, forestry, and AG at the table, they belong Thier!  They are stakeholders in the deer population as well, my hope is the hunters voice is not drown out.

 

Purple and Wanderer I am sure our beliefs are far closer the same than they are different.  I like good discussion, that's how minds open, and positive change happens.  Thank you.

Edited November 10, 2016 by ANYFISH2

[Getanet]

16 hours ago, PurpleFloyd said:

I agree with Del. Take for example the handful of guys who were behind the DNR audit push a few years back. They hit the social media and forums hard pushing the idea that there were no nature deer left to shoot and that the DNR was all to blame. One of the guys on here( getanet?) Exposed them and their goal of using the audit to get the state to increase the deer herd because higher numbers were the only way they had a shot at getting statewide APR passed.

They made the push, they got the audit and to this day nothing has changed in the management yet even reading this forum it looks like lots of big deer are getting shot and numbers are high.

 

I just wonder how long before the statewide APR push kicks in now.

 

 

 

Yes, I believe that was me who found emails from them in other forums about the need to increase population levels before they could campaign to expand APRs.

 

But, while that may still be their ultimate long term objective, I do think the MDDI has done some good. I think Brooks ratting the DNRs cage was one of the main reasons bag limits were reduced, which did seem necessary. I do think increased use of hunter satisfaction surveys and data from hunters on what they are seeing in the woods is a good thing.  I hope the DNR will be a bit more conservative with bonus tags in the future.

 

I don't think the audit did or will amount to much.

 

I don't necessarily like the approach Brooks takes, nor am I on the MDDI wagon, nor do I like some of the cross-over with the MN Whitetail Alliance (which does want to expand APR) but I will give some credit where credit is due.

[Coach1310]

I'll throw a new, arm chair guy into the mix.  The hardest part in all of this is you are trying to find a balance point or win-win... between folks who want less deer and folks who want more.  I think the part I struggle with the most is insurance folks being at the table.  I understand the state needs to look out for the health of our forests and benefits from the sale of timber and other areas... I understand with farmers being a huge part of the tax base/landowners in MN we need to bring them in the mix.  Obviously hunters are a player with license fees, etc.  My question is, why do the insurance folks have a seat at the table?  I just don't think it matters all that much.... if the deer population is decimated in your area, have your insurance rates ever gone down because of it?  Maybe I don't get it, but I am always puzzled, by the free market, for profit business owner, who doesn't own land being a player at the table.

 

I envy places like Iowa who have low hunter density and very similar habitat north to south... management is so much easier than in Minnesota.  It will never be perfect, but each sportsman/women has a chance to do their part and hopefully slowly improve or at the least maintain as much as possible.