Letting small bucks walk?

[BRULEDRIFTER]

"depriving others of their chance to shoot a buck."

I think that about wraps up this whole thread so I'm not targeting you in particular.

So in other words a guy should pass up a buck so he won't deprive someone else? Who is the selfish one here?

It comes down to personal choice. If a guy wants any buck that is his choice to make, not anyone else's. If a guy wants to take a small buck over a doe, again that is his choice. There is not a right or wrong there. The wrong is when someone pushes their choice on others. Educating is one thing, "educating" one to take on your way of thinking or what hunting is to you is not educating. It is in essence saying that any deer is not good enough for you and therefore shouldn't be for the other guy either. I have a huge problem with that.

You can decide for yourselves what hunting means to you. If its antlers you want go for it. If its meat you want then that is all that matters. Could be just to experience the hunt.

No one should tell you what your hunt should be like.

Have I passed on small bucks, yes I choose to do that only because there was a good chance I'd have a latter opportunity for meat in the freezer and I choose to continue hunting till that could happen. If you tell me I should pass on small bucks you'll meet a lot of resistance and then I'll lecture you hard on how I'll do as I please.

If and when we end up with a Bucks Only season, a limited time to hunt, or not many deer, I know what I'll do and could care less what anyone thought. After all it is my hunt.

I would like to be the first to stand up for the ovation! Nicely put, ST!

Can I get an Amen?

[Trout_Slayer_77]

AMEN!!!!

[Joe15]

early season watched alot of really nice 8 points walk knowing that there was a big boy around (10) Now he is in hiding and the sluggers got all of the 8's

[LOTWSvirgin]

I will tell you what. I let a lot of little ones walk all season. I cant get out till after xmas Nd that will give les than a week so i am shooting the first one that walks doe or buck

[dewyg]

I let them go if they are under 150, we have a great deer herd up here in NW Ontario and it will only get better if we use selective harvest. Now I have shot plenty in the 130-150 class, and my two best are in the high 180's. I now get to be selective with what I shoot. Its all about what you as an individual are willing to do to help the cause.

[LOTWSvirgin]

I would love help the cause. But is imposible here in soithwest Minnesota.

[snoozebutton]

Simply put, each to their own. I chose to let the little ones walk and wait for a big one but if the guy next to me shoots that same buck I'll be the first one to congratulate him. No matter how many yearlings are shot each year, a few make it through the season and become trophies the following year.

[propster]

Sorry Frank, either I miswrote or you maybe misunderstood. I didn't mean deprive others, like me (I'm not that selfish). I meant deprive others in their own party from shooting a deer, for he has used their tag. Now if all the other party members are cool with that, so be it. But the point still stands about one guy shooting multiple immature bucks in one season. I understand all of your points about shooting one and there's no issue there. Several by one hunter in the same season is what I was referring to. And if that's being selfish, sorry, that's the way I see it.

[eye1000us]

Having read all the different threads on qdm vs status quo I figured I'd add my two cents or more probably.

First nice job to the op on letting the little guy walk. A little discretion can go along ways towards improving the age of the bucks seen on local basis. I don't think there's any question that qdm works to improve structure, age and overall herd health so its really a matter of social issues and mind sets. Keep in mind how long its taken to get to where people actually practice selective harvest while fishing instead of stringering up every fish they catch.

There seems to be two distinct crowds, those for improved age structures ( and yes rack size) and those for status quo and the reasons for thier opinions vary from person to person. Personally I dont see qdm as limiting or taking away the opportunity from anyone to harvest a deer.Its more a matter of which deer we shoot.

I hear alot of people talk about the young and old losing out on opportunity etc. However, any well thought out qdm effort would take that into account via youth and senior licensing options etc.

We also hear the "people will lease up all the good spots" argument. As much as I hate to say it leasing is increasingly going to become a way of hunting life no matter what. As more people want qdm in place they are more likely to lease tracts just in order to improve thier own hunting ,irregardless of any state rules.

Another arguement would be those that dont want the DNR telling them what to shoot. Well, they already do in deer hunting with the 3" anlter rule and the various lottery zones etc. Look at duck and pheasant regulations as other examples where regulations dictate what you can and cannot shoot. Why any different for deer?

We also hear from the people where deer populations are very low and you pretty much have to shoot what you see or you go without. In that regard I think people need to realize that there is no cookie cutter set of regulations that will cover the entire state. Certain areas would benefit from a solid qdm effort but there are other areas of the state, due to deer popoulations and habitat, where its just not feasible right now. I think the DNR needs to aproach deer management similar to the way they manage fisheries using the toolbox approach.Some areas will likely have to stay brown its down while various levels of qdm could be implemented in others.In the future I could see some areas designated as "trophy " areas that have draws for buck tags and antler restrictions where others there may be no draw but instead just have basic antler restrictions and others where any deer is legal etc etc. Any regulations would have to take into account the local or regional variables.

The argument of not wanting more rules or that the rules are too complicated also gets brought up from time to time as well. However, if you were to look on-line at some of the regulations in other states you'd find MNs regs are pretty tame and straight forward. Its really just a mtter of figuring out where you hunt and focusing on the rules that apply there. As more rules are put in place I think the DNR will have to do a slightly better job of spelling out the regs on a region to region basis but certainly the complications of getting the rules out in a fashion that the vast majority can understand shouldnt be show stopper.

Realistically any effort to improve the deer hunting in MN is going to be slow process as the mind set begins to change. I think if we take it in small steps we can improve our deer hunting without negatively effecting anyones opportunity.Yes Uncle Bud may have to shoot a doe instead of shooting his 2nd forkhorn of the year but overall the impacts shouldnt be overly devastating to anyone.Start out with eliminating cross tagging of bucks , yes it may be a little difficult to enforce at first but a majority of hunters are honest and will abide by the rules.After a couple of years this will seem like second nature and no big deal. Follow that up with antler restrictions in some areas, draw for buck tags in some areas,EAB or EAT ( must shoot doe and then the buck must meet certain trophy requirments etc) or maybe even moving the seasons in some areas. There are a variety of licensing and regulatory possibilities that can be used ( again all of these options would have to be based on regional herd populations etc ) Slowly move to where we have good solid foundation for qdm practices and slowly but surely people will see the benefits of it and get on board. If we just make small changes , a little here a little there it can eventually add up to where we have some outstanding deer hunting here in MN ( not that its not good already in many areas of the state)

I truly think we can accomplish better deer hunting for everyone in this state with just a few painless changes.Its just gonna take awhile.

Sorry for the long post but figured I had to chime in. Now its off to the ice!!!

[propster]

Now that post deserves an ovation

[skee0025]

(must shoot doe and then the buck must meet certain trophy requirments etc). This is another statement that seems to point out a big part of the argument. You always read about how QMD supporter dont want to infringe on anothers hunting experience, then they turn around and say things like "must meet certain trophy requirements" or "antler point restrictions". You want to let them walk go ahead, but when you start legislating, you are in fact infringing on anothers hunt.

[candiru]

It sounds almost like the anti-hunters/anti-gunners. You just want the foot in the door that will lead to more regulation and change it bit by bit for the increased benefit of those with the time, money, and land. Right now it is "we just got to get these deer past 1.5 years". Then it will be we got to stop people from shooting nice 2.5 year old 8's and 10's. I am personally sickened by what I see hunting becoming when I turn on the outdoor television. I don't want to see that spread. I wouldn't even want to do most of the stuff I see on TV even if I had the money.

Because a person doesn't want QDM mandated by the state, doesn't neccessarily mean that they are for the status quo. It would be great if folks that have some good land and the time to hunt in areas where there are good deer numbers would pass on smaller bucks. I think with time and education it will come without it being forced through regulation. I just don't want to see it mandated for the guy down the road that has only 20 acres of marginal land to hunt, the guy with the young family that has a day and a half to hunt, the soldier home on leave from Iraq, or the person that has not shot a deer in ten years...etc........ I think we are going to see a bunch more lottery areas next year between issuing lots of doe tags and what could become a harsh winter. A lot of hunters will be happy just to be able to shoot that fork buck.

On one hand I am being told that 1.5 year old bucks are the dumbest thing in the woods. And then I am told that instead of 1.5 year old buck we can all be shooting 2.5 and 3.5 year olds. I really don't think that everyone will automatically be shooting bigger bucks. These deer are now a year or two smarter. Please give it time to let people voluntarilly come around on the idea of QDM instead of regulations that are imposed on everyone no matter what their circumstance. Take the example of a 5 lb walleye. Years ago if one was caught it had the fillet knife put to it in almost all cases. Now it has a good chance of being released even where it isn't mandated by law. I would have no problem if someone that fishes twice a year caught one and took some pictures and ate it. I would be a little disapointed if someone that fished twice a week ate one. However, I would not get in their face or anything. I really think that mandated QDM will lead to decreased opportunities for many hunters. The ones that don't have the best land, a lot of time, or hunt the hardest.

[propster]

You've almost got me convinced of the futility - let it come about naturally I guess, if it ever does. One more thought, take it for what it's worth. Sure, there are rules and regulations in place in Minnesota, especially for trying to differentiate among various areas with different deer densities or populations, and hunter populations. However, the apparent fear of additional regulations has me puzzled when you consider that, when compared to many of the states we've been talking about, part, most, or all of Minnesota's deer hunting share the following characteristics:

-high power rifles

-gun season during the rut, earliest of midwestern states

-shoot anything (no restriction)

-16 day firearm season

-gun seasons of some form or other that go from Nov 8 to Dec 14

-party hunting and multiple buck killing

-shoot up to 5 deer or more

-more public land available than just about any other state

-bowhunting during gun season

Without offering an opinion about any of these specific characteristics, it's pretty apparent to me that relatively speaking Minnesota is pretty UN-Restricted as compared to other states. In fact, knowing a little about the regulations in a lot of the other midwest states but admitting to not knowing them all, I'll venture a guess that there isn't a midwest state out there that has all these like Minnesota does.

[Joe15]

Ya not that i have like 2 weeks my motto has changed to if its brown...its down

[eye1000us]

(must shoot doe and then the buck must meet certain trophy requirments etc). This is another statement that seems to point out a big part of the argument. You always read about how QMD supporter dont want to infringe on anothers hunting experience, then they turn around and say things like "must meet certain trophy requirements" or "antler point restrictions". You want to let them walk go ahead, but when you start legislating, you are in fact infringing on anothers hunt.

Skee , I should have been a little mote specific on the EAT thing. My thought there was IF we ever got to the point where a standard license was for an anterless deer and we had a draw for an "any deer" tag a person could alternatively purchase an EAT tag where they had to shoot a doe but couldnt shoot a buck unless it was size "x" . It would give anyone who wasnt able to draw a buck tag the chance to still shoot a buck. Albeit it would have to be over a certain minimum. It would be an option ,not a mandate. Odds are we will never get to the draw for buck tags but if we do its an example of a possible option to allow a person to still shoot a nice one under the draw secenario.

[skee0025]

Thanks for clarifing, I could live with that as an option in that scenerio.

[eye1000us]

It sounds almost like the anti-hunters/anti-gunners. You just want the foot in the door that will lead to more regulation and change it bit by bit for the increased benefit of those with the time, money, and land. Right now it is "we just got to get these deer past 1.5 years". Then it will be we got to stop people from shooting nice 2.5 year old 8's and 10's. I am personally sickened by what I see hunting becoming when I turn on the outdoor television. I don't want to see that spread. I wouldn't even want to do most of the stuff I see on TV even if I had the money.

[chub]

Do other states regulate kills by age and or antler size?

[eye1000us]

Yes , there are quite a few states that have antler restrictions in place in some shape or form. Just a brief Google search turns up Pennsylvania , Texas,New York, Michigan,Georgia,Arkansaw and New Hampshire, to name a few , as having statewide ,or more commonly regional antler restrictions in place. I'm sure there are others as well,just dont have time too look right now. Without alot of indepth studying of any of these places my geuss is there are many studies/pilot programs similar to what we do here in MN for some of our state park hunts.

[Joe15]

Thats sounds fair for everyone

[LOTWSvirgin]

One could only wish that would happen.

[Hammer Handle]

I think MN should make scopes illegal. Can't shoot a deer unless close. That will let a lot of deer (and bucks) walk.

Also, make the "houses on stilts" illegal.

What is so hard about sitting in a heated house and shooting a deer through a telescope?

But, money talks. And that may change the sport someday. I sure hope not.

[BLACKJACK]

Yes , there are quite a few states that have antler restrictions in place in some shape or form. Just a brief Google search turns up Pennsylvania , Texas,New York, Michigan,Georgia,Arkansaw and New Hampshire, to name a few , as having statewide ,or more commonly regional antler restrictions in place. I'm sure there are others as well,just dont have time too look right now. Without alot of indepth studying of any of these places my geuss is there are many studies/pilot programs similar to what we do here in MN for some of our state park hunts.

I've also read where some states (Colorado and California, I think) have tried point restrictions and are going away from them because it doesn't work. What happens is that the bucks get 'high graded' meaning every buck above the minimum ends up getting shot. Plus they had a high shoot'em and leave'em rate when the buck didn't have the required number of points.

[kr8r.tom]

minnesota has a antler point restriction: at least one spike three inches long. apparently if its shorter, it's a freak doe with a short spike, now thats a trophy!

[BRULEDRIFTER]

That is exactly what will happen BlackJack.

You can see it in different fisheries. If there is a maximum slot limit that the fish need to meet in order to be kept it becomes harder and harder to find fish big enough. The population seems to almost be stuck an inch or two below the slot because all of the fish get harvested that are big enough.

The biggest problem w/ antler point restrictions, IMO, is people misjuding the actual size of the deer. I LMFAO when I see people say there should be a 15 inch spread or 8 inches in tine length, or something. ARE YA KIDDIN ME??? Do you want us to jump on the deer with a tape measure to see if it's big enough before we kill it?

I just think a lot of people would wind up killing bucks that are a litte too small and then the deer would either go to waste or it wouldn't get registered.

I also think more restrictions will promote more poaching.