Why not multiple bucks in managed/intensive harvest zones?

[Satchmo]

I just can't see state wide APR ever going thru either. The special interest groups don't want all those yearling bucks running around any more than they want the does. Afterall, those young bucks probably make up 90% of the yearly buck harvest. Don't want them around all winter.

[SmellEsox]

On 11/17/2016 at 4:56 PM, Satchmo said:

I just can't see state wide APR ever going thru either. The special interest groups don't want all those yearling bucks running around any more than they want the does. Afterall, those young bucks probably make up 90% of the yearly buck harvest. Don't want them around all winter.

APR is working fantastic in SE MN.  It could work along the transition also in an amazing way.  Acceptance in SE MN was 49% at the start and is now 60% and 15% don't care.  So you have 75% of hunters satisfied with deer hunting down there (according to Cornicelli in the latest Outdoor News).  I realize that this is off-topic, but APR would be a great compromise for significantly more area in MN.

[creepworm]

Umm, I am no statstician, but "don't care" does not equal "satisfied." Satisfied equals satisfied and dont care equals don't care. 

 

I realize you are trying to push an agenda, but when you use statistics, you should use the statistics. Not make up your own.

[hockeybc69]

On 11/17/2016 at 10:39 AM, PurpleFloyd said:

The problem that I had with the MDDI was that the motive behind the push to increase the herd was to set the table for a statewide APR push. 

 

Where did you pick that up PF? That is 100% not true. There has never been any discussion that MDDI has had the drive to push APR statewide. Absolutely none.

I support the MDDI; however I do NOT support statewide APR. Thats flat out not a good idea.

 

[leech~~]

Well did our part for MDDI this weekend in the Blizzard. Had 9 Doe's and only 1 little spike buck feeding on down trees right in front of me. Had a Doe tag but left the woods with it unfilled.

But, the big Doe at the butcher from opening weekend was not as lucky!

[Bureaucrat]

I had gotten wind this topic popped back up.  I had thought this whole forum went under.  Good to see the conversation is still alive and well. 

 

Missed you PF.  I have to tell ya, I have changed my ways.  Still haven't made peace with the deer issues, but I've come around on pheasants and fish.   I have been needling some folks at the capitol to push a bill to allow bag limits to be aggregated forward to account for days I don't limit out on fish and pheasants.  For example...

 

If I hunt pheasants 20 days in a season, I should be entitled to finish with 60 pheasants, even if I have to shoot every one of them on the last day.  If I fail to limit out on walleye each time I fish, I should be entitled to aggregate forward my unfilled limits.  So if I strike out 7 days in a row on LOW, on the 8th day, I should be allowed to keep 64 walleyes.  It only seems fair to me.  Why should guys that are better than me get to keep more game simply because they connect more consistently?  It's not fair as it sits now. 

 

I'm back! 

[Getanet]

According to today's news that CWD was found in two bucks in SE MN, it sounds like APR will be eliminated in Zone 3,"probably for at least several years" as they look to reduce the herd.

http://www.twincities.com/2016/11/22/2-mn-deer-test-positive-for-chronic-wasting-disease/

 

[Satchmo]

CWD will likely change the entire herd in SW MN. Here comes the Murk crew to save the day......let the slaughter begin. This will probably affect not only the herd, but land values and lease prices in the long run. 

[certified jumbo]

I'm glad it will bring down  the land value and lease spending .  I guess that's a good thing.  It may become available once again to the average Joe !

[PurpleFloyd]

On 11/21/2016 at 6:20 PM, Bureaucrat said:

I had gotten wind this topic popped back up.  I had thought this whole forum went under.  Good to see the conversation is still alive and well. 

 

Missed you PF.  I have to tell ya, I have changed my ways.  Still haven't made peace with the deer issues, but I've come around on pheasants and fish.   I have been needling some folks at the capitol to push a bill to allow bag limits to be aggregated forward to account for days I don't limit out on fish and pheasants.  For example...

 

If I hunt pheasants 20 days in a season, I should be entitled to finish with 60 pheasants, even if I have to shoot every one of them on the last day.  If I fail to limit out on walleye each time I fish, I should be entitled to aggregate forward my unfilled limits.  So if I strike out 7 days in a row on LOW, on the 8th day, I should be allowed to keep 64 walleyes.  It only seems fair to me.  Why should guys that are better than me get to keep more game simply because they connect more consistently?  It's not fair as it sits now. 

 

I'm back! 

 

Speaking of rent free. 

On 11/20/2016 at 10:44 PM, hockeybc69 said:

 

Where did you pick that up PF? That is 100% not true. There has never been any discussion that MDDI has had the drive to push APR statewide. Absolutely none.

I support the MDDI; however I do NOT support statewide APR. Thats flat out not a good idea.

 

lol

[Bureaucrat]

Missed you buddy.  I already called my therapist and told him to book me some extra time.  We've got a whole new set of issues to deal with. 

[Satchmo]

I wonder how well received it will be when the DNR tells the guys in SE bluff country that they have to pound down their deer population or they will.

Edited November 23, 2016 by Satchmo

[Bureaucrat]

PF, you have a position on the CWD outbreak in southern MN and tentative plan to being containment efforts?

[PurpleFloyd]

5 minutes ago, Bureaucrat said:

Missed you buddy.  I already called my therapist and told him to book me some extra time.  We've got a whole new set of issues to deal with. 

What issues? Did you have too much water and too much standing corn too?

2 minutes ago, Bureaucrat said:

PF, you have a position on the CWD outbreak in southern MN and tentative plan to being containment efforts?

Not really. I don't hunt there and would rather let the people out there handle things as they see see fit. 

[Satchmo]

PF,

Not your area, not your problem eh?

I hope you hunt a long ways from there, or it may be your problem sooner than you think. Pay very close attn to the state response to this. Then you'll know what to expect if it ever comes to your area.

[delcecchi]

Logical point of departure is to look at the Pine Island incident, and presume the same...

 

Or the Wisconsin situation where they have to just live with CWD since the land owners didn't co-operate.  

This what we want? 

http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/wildlifehabitat/prevalence.html

Quote

CWD prevalence in Wisconsin

There appears to be two central areas of CWD infection in Wisconsin. One is centered in western Dane and eastern Iowa counties. The other is located in northern Illinois and extends into southeastern Wisconsin. Analyses of the geographic distribution of disease show that the disease is not evenly distributed throughout the affected area. Disease prevalence is much higher near the centers of each infection and declines with increasing distance from the center as would be expected with this introduced disease which is now endemic in southern Wisconsin.

CWD prevalence has also changed over time. Since 2002, CWD prevalence within our western monitoring area has shown an overall increasing trend in all sex and age classes. During the past 14 years, the trend in prevalence in adult males has risen from 8-10 percent to about 30 percent and in adult females from about 3-4 percent to nearly 15 percent. During that same time, the prevalence trend in yearling males has increased from about 2 percent to about 10 percent and in yearling females from roughly 2 percent to about 8 percent.

 

Dane county, Madison. 

[Bureaucrat]

Well that's a let down.  Where's the fire you had when you were fighting the audit?  This seems right up our alley. 

[delcecchi]

http://www.twincities.com/2016/11/22/2-mn-deer-test-positive-for-chronic-wasting-disease/

 

In response to two deer that have tested positive to chronic wasting disease in Minnesota, wildlife officials Tuesday said they plan to reduce deer numbers as much as possible in a portion of southeastern Minnesota.

That probably will mean unlimited free deer tags for landowners, additional public hunts and possibly the use of privately contracted sharpshooters, according to the Department of Natural Resources. Additional restrictions would include a ban on feeding deer and a quarantine on the area, preventing deer from leaving the area until the carcass is confirmed to be disease-free.

On Tuesday, the DNR announced two deer in southeastern Minnesota have tested positive for CWD, a contagious, hard-to-eradicate disease that is always fatal to whitetail deer, wildlife officials announced Tuesday.

The discovery marks only the second time the disease has been found in wild deer in the state.

Hunters killed the two deer, both males, one mile from each other near Lanesboro during the the first segment of the firearms deer season, which ended Nov. 13 in much of the state, DNR officials said. A second test has confirmed the disease in one of the deer, and confirmation on the second deer is expected later this week.

No changes are expected before Jan. 1. Saturday marks the beginning of muzzleloader season — the state’s final firearms season for deer — and archery continues through year’s end.

But attempts for rapidly reducing deer numbers will likely come swiftly after that, Lou Cornicelli, the DNR’s wildlife research manager, told reporters in a Tuesday conference call. Because CWD can be transmitted from deer to deer, it’s widely believed that one of the best ways to quash an outbreak is to prevent animals from coming into contact with each other — by reducing the density of animals in a given area.

“The window to eliminate a disease like CWD is very short,” Cornicelli said. When asked to what extent the deer density should be reduced, Cornicelli responded: “Our goal would be to reduce it as much as we can.”

The boundaries of such a containment area have yet to be determined.

According to the DNR, the two are the only deer to test positive from 2,493 samples collected from Nov. 5 to 13. Results are still pending from 373 additional test samples collected during the opening three days of the second firearms season, which ran Nov. 19 to 21.

Minnesota officials have prided themselves on having contained its only known incidences of CWD, while surrounding states, including Wisconsin, have experienced outbreaks. Minnesota was believed to be CWD-free, but detection of the disease in a bordering Iowa county triggered testing in southeastern Minnesota in 2014. It was that surveillance program that detected the two CWD-infected deer near Lanesboro, in an area known as deer hunting permit area 348.

It’s not clear how the deer became infected, but CWD is transmitted by prions that can remain viable in the environment for years. The deer could have contracted the disease from other deer, or the saliva of other deer, or from the environment itself.

CWD is a brain disease fatal to deer, elk and moose. It’s related to Bovine spongiform encephalopathy, also known as “mad cow disease,” in cattle, but CWD is not known to affect human health. While it is found in deer in states bordering southeastern Minnesota, it was found in only a single other wild deer in Minnesota in 2010. In 2012, it was detected in a captive red deer.

With soils rich in minerals hospitable to growing large antlers, southeastern Minnesota is a popular destination for deer hunters, who successfully lobbied several years ago to restrict hunting of bucks to mature males only. The so-called antler-point restrictions, while popular among hunters, will be lifted at the end of the year and probably for at least several years while deer numbers are suppressed.

Craig Engwall, executive director of the Minnesota Deer Hunters Association, said he thinks deer hunters will generally support the plan to tamp down deer numbers to prevent disease spread.

“I believe the average hunter is OK with an aggressive approach as long as it can be meaningful, and as long as the numbers of infected deer stay low, it can,” Engwall said.

 

[hockeybc69]

2 hours ago, PurpleFloyd said:

On 11/20/2016 at 10:44 PM, hockeybc69 said:

 

Where did you pick that up PF? That is 100% not true. There has never been any discussion that MDDI has had the drive to push APR statewide. Absolutely none.

I support the MDDI; however I do NOT support statewide APR. Thats flat out not a good idea.

 

lol

Thats all you have? Paste anything you have on MDDI supporting or pushing APR at any point since it started. Come on Mr Know It All. 

 

[PurpleFloyd]

8 hours ago, hockeybc69 said:

Thats all you have? Paste anything you have on MDDI supporting or pushing APR at any point since it started. Come on Mr Know It All. 

 

It's already been done enough times, although I suppose if you get technical it wasn't the MDDI per se. But it's well documented that the MDDI was formed to increase deer population in order to facilitate APR statewide. Call it whatever you want.  I believe you were front and center during the discussions so you either forgot or are being obtuse. 

 

But back to the current topic of CWD, I think it's jumping the gun to make that big of a shift in policy with only 2 cases confirmed. One way or the other they should use the same survey to get input on removing Apr that they used to implement them. 

[PurpleFloyd]

11 hours ago, Bureaucrat said:

Well that's a let down.  Where's the fire you had when you were fighting the audit?  This seems right up our alley. 

This doesn't impact my hunting. It was always a risk in that area from what I understand. 

Did they form a policy as to how they would respond if CWD was discovered and is that how they made the harvest decisions so quickly or was this done off the cuff? 

[PurpleFloyd]

11 hours ago, Satchmo said:

PF,

Not your area, not your problem eh?

I hope you hunt a long ways from there, or it may be your problem sooner than you think. Pay very close attn to the state response to this. Then you'll know what to expect if it ever comes to your area.

Why would I want to or expect to have any say in how deer are managed in an area that I don't hunt in? The likelyhood of CWD spreading in an area with less than 2 dpsm is pretty much zero so I don't see it too likely to happen here. If it does then we will deal with the situation. 

[SmellEsox]

4 hours ago, PurpleFloyd said:

It's already been done enough times, although I suppose if you get technical it wasn't the MDDI per se. But it's well documented that the MDDI was formed to increase deer population in order to facilitate APR statewide. Call it whatever you want.  I believe you were front and center during the discussions so you either forgot or are being obtuse. 

 

But back to the current topic of CWD, I think it's jumping the gun to make that big of a shift in policy with only 2 cases confirmed. One way or the other they should use the same survey to get input on removing Apr that they used to implement them. 

Really?!  I would love to see that documentation.  I was a part of that discussion back in the day also and never remember anything presented that would verify that talk.

[Getanet]

Unfortunately the QDMA removed their forum and there doesn't seem to be an archive anywhere. But you can see my post that quoted Brooks in a QDMA forum about 3/4 of the way down the page. I believe the MDDI was formed the next month:

http://fishingminnesota.com/forums/topic/200327-audit-push-time-to-act/?page=21

 

11/19/2013. Brooks(AKA Bat Man)"Keep writing letters and emails to MN Outdoor News and the legislature to build awareness and public support. Very important. Better deer numbers come first, followed by yearling buck protection."

11/19/2013. Ssmith "Awesome...feed me the "party line" and I'll duplicate it "

http://www.qdma.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-58992.htm

[Satchmo]

6 hours ago, PurpleFloyd said:

It's already been done enough times, although I suppose if you get technical it wasn't the MDDI per se. But it's well documented that the MDDI was formed to increase deer population in order to facilitate APR statewide. Call it whatever you want.  I believe you were front and center during the discussions so you either forgot or are being obtuse. 

 

But back to the current topic of CWD, I think it's jumping the gun to make that big of a shift in policy with only 2 cases confirmed. One way or the other they should use the same survey to get input on removing Apr that they used to implement them. 

It is highly unlikely that two hunters shot the only two infected deer in SE MN. There will be NO discussion at this point. The DNR will dictate what is going to be done about this. Period!