Support a minimum rack size???

[honker23]

This is very interesting, but as others have said, this is more of a personal preference issue than legal. I know many deer Fanatics that hunt bow, slug, and muzzel seasons. They have shot many and now want the big one. But they forget how excited they were the first time they shot a DEER.
Our populations in the SE are unreal, too many deer and they have to be taken. But anyone who has land to hunt during the buck seasons knows there are plenty of huge bucks shot in the buck season. Problem is most locals/landowners hunt this season, which they should. But many people hunt the 2nd season bucks/does, now the deer are past rut and the big ones aren't stupid enough to get shot. So the only deer you see are the little ones with horns or without. Then this group of people say they dont see the big ones.
Back on track I disagree with the at least X amount of horns proposal, it's like only shooting roosters with 20+ in tail feathers.

[Fisher Dave]

Many of you have great points on QDM .. but many of us can care less on how big the buck is before we shoot it.

As I said earlier, I can care less if the buck has 4 points or 24 points... or has antlers at all... I dont eat the antlers. Yes, the rack would look great on my wall, but the meat in my freezer is most important to me, and will remain so. If I had no reason to hunt other than the simple fact of trying to obtain a trophy, I would likely not be hunting ... I hunt for hunt for food, and I know that there are mass majority of other hunters that have nearly the same outlook.. once a deer is harvested regardless of size, it basicly turns into food... If theres a rack for the wall, great, if not the freezer is full.

I have nothing against trophy hunters .. more power to you and the best of luck, but please dont try to limit everyone else's hunting opportunities due to your own personal desire to more consistantly take *trophy* class animals.

[Havin' Fun]

I've tried to stay out of this debate, but .....

We are really divided on this topic. I would be willing to bet that similar arguments/discussions have gone on in the DNR headquarters as well over the very same topic.

I'm totally for QDM, but not really for a strict state mandated program. I would strongly be in favor of an "earn a buck" program in intensive harvest regions. This would decrease doe populations(helping to keep the herd in check) and still allow a hunter the ability to shoot a buck.

Managed and quota areasshould stay the same as the current regulations. To be honest, there just isn't enough deer in those areas to manage any further. A hunter in S. Minnesota who sees a 6 pointer is going to want to shoot it. I have been there done that. Was the only deer I saw all weekend and I didn't have a doe tag anyway. This is a common response from many hunters in these regions...because that's where I've hunted all my life.

I really would think the "earn a buck" program in the intensive harvest areas would certainly help out the situation in this state though. Both size of bucks and the over abundant doe population. These regions would see a better ratio and more quality bucks.

[Ruttin' Buck]

I agree somewhat Surface Tension. A bad winter absolutely will degrade a deer population significantly. Particularly in northern, MN where little corn stands during winter and the wolves are plentiful. Although I feel many of the areas I hunt have ample browse for the deer to feed on, you are also very correct in stating that browse will not substitute for a high protien nutrition.

I guess my point is that the little buck you mentioned that replaces the big old bruiser that dies after chasing the ladies for a few months...well, there was more of those little guys left from the bucks only seasons...right? So using the same analogy, maybe 3 little button/spikes replaced the old buck in those seasons; coupled with a few easy winters means large bucks are more plentiful.

In my opinion, we're seeing more 4-5 yr old (prime) bucks. The winters have only been moderate for about the last 3; '99/'00? was the last significant snowfall accumulation. Meaning the spike in large bucks from moderate winters should have started spring of '00...okay, some would be at 3.5 yrs now...maybe some of the 8's we're seeing.

Interesting though isn't it?

How about big does? I remember the days of huge mature does. We have shot very few of these over the past several years. They should be the healthiest going into winter yet my opinion is that we're not shooting bigger does.

Just something to ponder on...don't take this as abrasive please...just worthy discussion.

[Surface Tension]

Buckblaster Northern Mn is the fringe of the whitetails range. As a rule we have bigger deer because they handle deep snows better and their larger body mass can take the cold better. Lets say our herd got wiped out and you tried to relocate Texas deer in northern Mn. It wouldn't work, Northern Mn herds has evolved to our harsh winters. The small does are a result of our easy winters. Once we get a killing winter you'll see the number of small does drop. Just mother nature's way of ensuring a strong herd by getting rid of the inferior deer. That fat on a deers back is what gets them through the winter. The browse is a starvation diet. You would think a deer would eat more in the winter but the opposite happens, they eat less and their bodies metabolism slows down. This is on reason dogs chasing deer is such a major problem. Just the stress and energy used to flee can mean life or death come spring which is when most winter deaths among deer occurs. This may sound off topic but it has a lot to do with our northern deer herd and should be considered. All its going to take is one bad winter and you'll be lucky to shoot anything up here.

These high deer numbers we have now are not the norm in Northern Mn. Taking a doe meant you actually killed her and her would be twin fawns next spring and was a last resort. Our bucks only season was to protect does during low deer numbers and this is why you'll see a hunter take any buck over a doe.
As doe permits increased up here most hunters understood it was to the benefit of the herd to take the does to lower deer numbers. This situation wont last forever up here and as I said earlier does will be passed up for any buck once more to protect the them. QDM may work in southern Mn where food is plentiful and winters are easy
but it totally a different story here. Now shall we throw our wolves into the picture?

[This message has been edited by Surface Tension (edited 11-19-2003).]

[Mark Christianson]

I am actually encouraged by the number of people that either already practice a form of QDM, or in the people that seem interested in it.
It seems just based on this topic, there isn't a huge gap between those for QDM and those against QDM.
In the last few years I have gone from a guy that was "brown its down"; to a person that also had a desire to not only see a nice buck, but to actually have a chance at one.
We hunt private property that has been in the family since the early 1900's in Ottertail County. A county with one of the highest numbers of record book deer registered in the state.
My dad has hunted the property religously for 40+ years, and the biggest buck he has ever shot had been a decent 8pt in all those years. Actually, nothing bigger has come off that property since I started over 20 years ago.
2 years ago we decided to let some deer go. Well last year, Dad shot his biggest ever(a respectable 8 pt) and I shot my biggest ever, which was a nice 9 pt. Neither were wall hangers, but I'll tell you what, it sure was exciting. And we let other smaller ones go prior to taking these.
This year so far, I have taken a wall hanger 8 pt, and we have another that I got on my trail camera that is bigger yet.
I have no idea if just a few years of trying a modified QDM approach has changed our situation, but I sure can't argue it. We are seeing more deer, and nicer ones.
Coincidence? Could be.
Bottom line, we are seeing more deer and nicer ones.
Could be milder winters. Could be more people around us are trying a QDM, but we don't know about it. Could be a lot of things, but QDM is there to stay with us.
The overall hunt the last few years has been the best I have experienced since I started deer hunting.
Try it, you'll like it!!!
PS - If you want to see my buck this year, go back to Deer-Bear-Moose-Varmints; and go down to a topic called Great Deer Pic started by Sarge.

[This message has been edited by biglakeba$$ (edited 11-19-2003).]

[honker23]

But just think if you let that one go until next year....
You see we could go on and on about this, but when it comes down to it, hunters like to shoot something, otherwise we would all sit out there with cameras, and what you consider a shooter and what others consider a shooter could be very far apart. Now I'm not saying anything bad about your deer, it's very nice, and congrats, but some people may not have shot your deer because they already have 10 as big or bigger on their wall. You see what I'm saying. That is why I think QDM should remain a personal choice, and on private land it will work better than public.

[Mark Christianson]

I never said to impose my thinking on public land or mandate it as a DNR rule.
I started this topic because I was wondering what interest there was out there about it and who supported the idea.
I am just putting out info; that on the surface, it appears it can make a difference for those of us that want a better chance at seeing some "horses" out there.
Sure some people have to pull the trigger, but there are others out there that may be swayed with these discussions to give it a shot.

Many people have stated to let this managment technique be a personal decision.
So be it. We will never get 100% buy in on the idea.

[BLACKJACK]

Good topic! I've been stewing about this subject since a column came out in the STrib pushing QDM. I'm getting tired of other people telling me what kind of deer I should be shooting. If you want to shoot a bigger deer, then YOU need to pass on the smaller ones until Mr. Big comes along.
Don't tell me what I can or cannot shoot! There are lots of nice bucks shot in MN every year, just look at pictures in the local bait shops or in a publication like the Outdoor News - lots of nice pictures and nice bucks! If you really want a big one, they're out there, you just need to spend more time in the woods to find one and scout out his habits and harvest him. Don't legislate my hunting to make it easier for you!

One of the dirty little secrets of QDM is that it pushes increased doe harvest to get the sex ratio into line. Less does means less fawns and less deer seen by hunters. Optimal QDM would mean you may have a year or two where you're not able to shoot a deer since its been cut down so much. Is that what most deer hunters want? I think not. I can remember years when doe permits were tough to get, you might have only one for a party of four. It gets to be a long season when you can only shoot bucks.

Another point that needs to be emphasized is, are the people shooting the small bucks having fun? Isn't that what deer hunting is all about? The comradery, the excitement, the thrill of opening morning, the burning of some powder, the eating of venison backstraps the first night. It doesn't take a BC buck to equal fun. One persons 'passed up buck' is another persons trophy!

As far as I'm concerned, deer hunting in MN is as good as its ever been. When I can shoot a doe early in the archery season, and still keep on hunting for a buck or another doe, life is good. I passed on a small buck in late Oct, but only because I had a week off coming up, if I shot him I wouldn't be able to go after the big buck that I knew was around. But that small buck will look better and better as the archery season wears down.

[Guest]

Another factor at QDM is the quality in the ground minerals and foods available. People complain about small racked bucks, but there are areas in the state that will not produce a record class deer. A big part is genetics and that is where harvesting the does comes into play. A doe will chase off her buck offspring to prevent the in-breeding, however, it only goes so far.

A place where I hunt, always produces a buck in the 150 to 170 class, every year. Never fails. Yet, 5 miles from this location, is a large patch of woods (1000 acres), that always produces 8 point basket racks. These basket racks are on 2, 3, & 4 year old deer. The racks aren't going to grow any bigger, so taking a 6 point vs. a spike isn't going to help the population to grow bigger deer.

The QDM answer is harvesting of the does, to bring in "new blood".

The second part of this is the quality of minerals / food. MOSTLY minerals. It takes the correct ground minerals to support big racks. Corn, beans, alfalfa don't just do it.

That is why the Muy Grande bucks of Texas are so huge. I've seen yearlings sporting 12 points with inside spreads of 15 inches. There isn't corn, beans, or alfalfa down there. It is all in the minerals that sports these monster racks.

Yes, if you rid the inner breeding and get a "clean" group of deer, chances are that your going to produce big animals. However, there are so many factors that come into play.

Not shooting that spike, may lead to more inferior buck production. I've seen many a yearling sporting a basket rack of 6 or 8 points. That buck is your prime animal. Now, if you have a tall "spiker" running around, that animal is hurting your big buck production.

The answer isn't always shooting the inferior buck. You need to get to the source of that buck (it's mommy) and rid her of the production problem. That will help.....

But again, you need to look at why some areas in our country are growing bigger racks than others......It is the ground quality, not just the QDM.

------------------
Let 'em go so they can grow!!!

[Lip RIPPER!]

Whew. This has been quite a topic. Lots of good points made for both sides. I think we all need to realize that we all don't have the same hunting opportunity as the next person. I feel fortunate to hunt the 9 day rifle season and a 3 and half month bow season so I have time to pass on a deer if I choose to do so. In the same general part of NW MN, there are people who only hunt a 2 day season and do shoot at every opportunity regardless of size, year. etc. Do I necessarily agree with the "brown it's down theory?" My first thought is no but I have never been in that hunting situation either.

I think we all agree that it takes good food, genetics, and age to grow large racked deer. As somebody had stated previously, it's frustrating when you pass on a small buck to only have the next duy drill him in the boiler room, as I have the same beliefs as you. I think we can only do our part in trying to let one go in hopes of giving a deer one more year to mature. We can't worry about the other guy. If you can talk to neighbors especially in open farmland areas and try to agree on letting the smaller ones go your deer will definately get bigger.

I used to be that person who shot at anything that had a horn above his head but not anmyore. Deer hunting is fun for me and that part just isn't fun anymore. I personally would rather take a doe than to shoot a small buck just to say " I shot a buck" I just cleaned out a pile of horns from years ago from the corner of my garage and the racks were nothing to great. All I kept thinking was "what might have been."

In closing, I think we can all ageee that we have different views on hunting and fishing and that we have to respect each others decisions on harvesting. It's good to hear that there a number of people who believe in QDM and I hope you continue to practice it. Happy hunting.

[This message has been edited by Lip RIPPER! (edited 11-20-2003).]

[B mac]

I can't resist any longer....I'm not big on debates, but it's time to throw my poke in on this subject!

First and foremost, hunting today is evolving into a true SPORT. This is an evolution from what once was a way to feed the family. The older "meat hunter" generations, also known as "brown it's down" advocates, are becoming fewer and fewer each year. As populations become wealthier and younger generations take over the sport, pure meating hunting is no longer a necessity. Hence, support for QDM has grown significantly in recent years. Hunters no longer "need" to fill the freezer and can now focus on making it into the book. This will continue to materialize in the near and long term.

Other states have done a fantastic job in improving the buck quality in their states. With this comes noteriety, out-of-state dollars to boost the economy, and more entrants into the books. Iowa, Illinois, Ohio, Kansas, they all make the deer hunting headlines every year with large B&C kills. Minnesota's land and resources are of no lessor quality than these states...the simple fact is that they are just managed better. This is one subject that can not be disputed. The problem lies in the fact that in MN, there are too many hunters, the season is too long, the season is during the heart of the rut, party hunting is permitted, and rifles are allowed for the majority of the state.

I'm all for a minimum rack requirement or some other means of improving the buck quality. I believe you will see some movement towards this within the next 5 years.

FYI - Favorable buck to doe ratios do not lead to larger quality bucks. This is a falacy. However, too large of a population will impact rack quality due to stress and malnutrition. When a population has a low buck to doe ratio, there is more competition to breed. Therefore, bucks move more and become more aggressive during daylight hours. This obviously leads to more quality buck sightings. On properties with a high ratio, (generally speaking, there are exceptions for every rule!) very little rut activity will be displayed by mature whitetails.

Very good discussion by all. I enjoy reading each individual opinion on this subject!

[Guest]

Big Mac.......maybe you said something that alot of people just plain forgot about..........

Don't blame me for preaching, because I'm there with the same group......

However, this year on a fishing trip, the conversation arose at how the "sport" of fishing and hunting has really changed.

Yesterday was old aluminum boats with old motors........today, it's $40,00 plus riggs with every bell and whistle made, along with $300 rod/reel combos.......

Yesterday was the old model 12 or 30/30, with a box of old slugs.......Today, it is $1,000 rifle/scope combos, with all the down filled warm polar fleece cloths, $200 boots, $400 range finders, etc, etc, etc...

I guess my point is this....today's hunting and fishing has changed. I'm very greatful that my father of 79 years still hunts with me and fishes with me. I, today have become the teacher with the new trends. BUT, he still teaches me and reminds me the point of why we HUNT. It is for the pure point of carrying on our ancesstors traits. It is a ritual, and something that I'm gratfull for, and mostly, very respective to the animal harvested.

But, don't loose focus of why your hunting and where you came from. Big bucks are awesome, so are 10lb walleyes.

Only on "Super buck farms" are you going to really have a shot at the record books........everything else that is big that is harvested is just pure straight out luck.......

Sorry for preaching, as I'm a buck hunter too, but what Big Mac said, did shed a little light.......

------------------
Let 'em go so they can grow!!!

[can it be luck?]

I think you guys just summed up the whole topic in those posts!.....I shouldn't say that, all posts were great. ST has once again come shineing through with a lot of "extra" facts that need to be considered.

------------------
http://groups.msn.com/canitbeluck

[Iceman77]

I feel I need to chime in again. Doe/buck ratios are definately not a fallacy in quality "large" and "genetic" management. If ratios are largely out of balance as in many areas in Minnesota it shows unhealthy deer populations. 5-10 does for every buck is definately a very unhealthy population. For every two deer statistically speaking 1 buck and 1 doe should be born. When rut comes around the doe will kick the fawns away. The doe fawn nearly 100% of the time will stay in her territory she was raised and eventually have her own fawns there someday. The buck fawn over 80% of the time will leave the home range and of that 80%, 95% will travel 5-20 miles from their "original" home. This is natures way of preventing in-breeding within the local herd. As of yet I have never heard of a good explanation of how the buck fawn realizes that it must travel away from home but they do... this is fact. Now assuming equal doe and buck births and does hold to an area while bucks travel to others then eventually you will have more does in some areas and bucks in others due to looking for good land to make a new home. This has also been proven. Without good buck and doe management eventually you will have an overabundance of one sex in an area. Now in an area with an overabundance of does a good bodied nice racked genetically "graced" buck will have many does to mate with... this increases the likelyhood of good genetics with all these does... WRONG. What happens in an instance like this and many of you who spent lots of time in the field will have seen this. The small bucks will get chased away by the dominant buck in that area... but they normally hang close behind and when the buck is busy breading and tending to one of the does in his herd a little inferior buck often times will initially breed with a doe that comes into estrous before the dominant buck does because he is too busy tending to a couple of does at a time. This has also been proven. Eventually this does reduce deer quality in that area. Now on the other hand where there are more bucks in an area than there are does, which is difficult in the state of Minnesota but I have seen in a few localized areas where I've hunted. The bucks will compete significantly with each others and become stressed before the winter. This will greatly reduce the rack sizes the following year... this has also been proven, fortunately this does not happen often. Also note that some areas can hold more deer than others this is rather obvious and really doesn't need to be stated but they way Minnesota does their licensing it becomes very difficult to effectively control deer herds and quality in areas the size of a county. I am not saying there are not big bucks in this state since I have seen many myself and I have seen two 180-190 class deer this year where I bowhunt. I just feel that their can be a better quality of overall deer with minimal stress and competition within the deer population itself. This comes straight from a former wildlife bioligist with many years of experience and research into this very subject and still is considered to be a very prominent individual in running quality deer management programs in many different areas.

Overall in summary there needs to be good deer ratios, good genetics, excellent(not average or good) nutrition, average natural predatation, average to minimal human intervention(this term is relative), and cover(grassland, trees, swamp...etc.), human intervention to weed out inferior bucks. You don't need all of the above but it helps to have more quality deer if you do.

[Iceman77]

I also forgot to add something. Just because a deer gets older does not mean that it will grow more points on its rack. To truly manage an area for quality bucks one would need to judge the rack size AND the age of the deer. I have seen many bucks that are 4 years old and older and are only forkhorns and 3X3's. These deer are the management deer that should be taken out to obtain genetically "appealling" deer. Otherwise, they will become old and breed with many does over the years adding genetically "inferior" deer to the local population. Young deer should only be shot to reduce the population in an area, which needs to happen in many places(not all). Also, the doe population needs to be controlled better to reduce overall deer herd stress on the local population and ultimately this will help with more food and less stress which is part of the equation to larger racks(deer that is). This is a complicated process and isn't as easy as just not shooting younger bucks. This eqation has many variables that need to be looked at and dealt with appropriately. I would like to challenge more hunters to look and spend time researching the deer in their area and take does as needed to reduce doe numbers in their area. I would also like to see hunters judge the age of deer and determine how old the buck is and take deer 3 years of age and older with racks that are too small for their age and take these deer as "management" bucks where needed. This will help in creating genetically "appealling" bucks. Overall, everyone needs to keep the same common goal in mind to protect our resources and ultimately that is our hunting rights and not to become completely separated over small issues.

[Ruttin' Buck]

Okay ST!! Uncle already! No actually, I think we both know how the factors that effect the deer population in northern MN...maybe just twisting words now.

Obviously we've both seen very poor and very good deer populations in northern MN. We could heckle indefinitely about why the blatently obvious population of bigger bucks has occurred up north over the past 2-3 years without any QDM being implemented. Heck, we both are right to some extent.

We know that there are bucks walking the woods out there right now that would not be around if one of our last winters had been terrible. And we know that there has to be a buck or two with some impressive head-gear milling the forests that was once a little button whose life was likely spared and his smarts were honed during the bucks only seasons.

Not sure I want to open a new can (of wolves)?? Do I? I know they like to try to tamper with our bear baits. I know I can think of 6 deer kill sites I've walked up on without thinking too hard. I'm sure you've found many more than that being a resident in wolf country. Time for a new post??!

[Just4fun]

Just curious as to when so many people stopped deer hunting and took up horn hunting. I'm in an area now that is so bad that if you shoot a doe, you have to wait until dark to register it for fear of people finding out.
One guy here shoot a yearling doe that ran to within about 20 feet from his truck before it died. I thought it was great as most deer seem to run to the worst possible place to die. At work for the next few months he would find notes around his work area about being a bambi killer and mouse killer.
"If it doesn't have a large rack you better not shoot it."
Sorry but I hunt DEER.

[honker23]

Boy Iceman, it seems you have it all figured out, with a lot of research to support your posts. I have no problem with that, but you make it sound as if we are hunting on guided ranches, with the opportunity to take a "management buck" and does at the drop of a hat. In some areas people are lucky to see a DEER and they will not debate whether to take it or not because it is only 2 1/2 with good potential vs a 3 1/2 with poor genetics. They hunt for two days and will shoot a deer.

Your points are well taken, but unless you are hunting on 500 acres of private land, I still believe this concept will be difficult for people to buy into.

[Iceman77]

As do I honker. I just strongly disagree with a minimum rack size requirement since that will not help with increasing the quality of the deer herd. There are other options available as discussed and lottery systems have proven well to manage deer populations and maintain "healthy" sizes. For the people that want better quality deer I would propose management aspects as discussed above by yourselves. Not everyone should take a management deer since all ages of a local population need to be within balance. I also promote the guys taking younger deer, since it is part of the natural scheme of things... overharvesting is another story though. With some individuals taking management deer, others taking young deer, and others finding the elusive trophy to take home the population can be more easily controlled and ultimately balanced. I just have a serious problem with minimum rack requirements which will ulitmately degrade the deer population. Therefore, I agree with taking all ages of deer especially for the hunters limited on time and resources. But I would like to see the DNR take a more active role in deer population and health management. As of yet I have not been moved by their efforts, or lack, of in this respect. Without the DNR putting extra effort into this it is up to the hunters to analyze their hunting area and make a choice with what they want to see for the future... quality deer, restrictive hunting regulations, more venison, more deer diseases...etc.

[Coach Dog]

I just found some interesting statistics on how MN rates to other states per P&Y and B&C bucks. From the years '97-'00, MN entered an avg. of 37 P&Y bucks per 100,000 deer harvested, while on avg. IL entered 171, IA entered 135, OH entered 71, WI entered 69, and KS entered 68, respectively.
From years '95-'99, MN entered an avg. of 4.3 B&C bucks per 100,000 deer harvested, while on avg. IA entered 21, IL entered 16, KS entered 11, OH entered 7, and WI 3.7, respectively. I wish I had some more up-to-date figures though. Source: blufflandwhitetails.org/SE_MN_DeerHerd.html

We got a ways to go!!!

[This message has been edited by Coach Dog (edited 11-21-2003).]

[Havin' Fun]

Coach Dog,

Wonder how much of that increase is due to people actually having their bucks measured for Pand Y?

Isn't it interesting what TV and marketing can do for a sport!

[B mac]

I'm a little too young to remember, but were there hunting programs on TV in the early '90s and late '80s? I can remember purchasing Bill Jordan's Realtree Monster Bucks III as the first movie I ever owned. This was in the mid '90s, probably 1994. With the advent of The Outdoor Channel and weekend mornings filled with hunting programs on ESPN and TNN (now SPIKE), I believe this has increased awareness of trophy deer hunting, as noted in the previous post. Thus, more trophy hunting was pursued and more racks were officially scored. I'm certain this will further improve in the years to come.

Very rarely do you see any program shooting a small buck or even a doe. Young hunters pick up on this. It's interesting that the "management bucks" on these programs consist of 120-140 class 8-pointers. I wish I hunted property like that!!

[Flash]

The #1 reason for all of this is "Mother Nature." Those other states do not have the severe winters like Minnesota. You can pass all the small bucks you want but if Mother Nature does not cooperate, it's over. I just hope this is not one of those winters.

[Coach Dog]

In some areas of the state, southeast in particular, hard winters are not really a factor. Plenty of food and cover, and not as many predators, besides the automobile of course.

------------------