Minnesota deer management hits roadblock

[BLACKJACK]

This is the title of a deer hunting article written by Dennis Anderson in todays Star Tribune, its a good read, it talks about the round table discussions the DNR just had.

The first paragraph, the hi-liting is mine:

A small but vocal cadre of deer hunters that wants whitetail hunting and management to change significantly in Minnesota made its case last weekend at the Department of Natural Resources stakeholder meetings in Brooklyn Center.

Another paragraph:

• Most Minnesota deer hunters are casual in their approach to the sport. Ask them whether they want to see and shoot fewer deer most years than they do now, while raising the possibility that every few years they might get a chance to shoot a mature buck, a significant share would say no.

• Reducing the overall harvest -- which would likely be necessary -- to increase the percentage of older bucks in a region's herd likely would trigger a falloff in the number of people who hunt deer.

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

Its a good read.

[Mark Christianson]

The DNR is just out to ruin hunting for us.

I want bigger bucks and more deer. Why cant I have both?

JK

It all makes sense. They dont have an easy job.

[Bear55]

Here is a good quote from the article.

"Granted, the DNR shouldn't shy from rocking the regulation boat, assuming any changes would benefit deer and/or other wildlife. And balancing the herd more evenly between bucks and does, and including more mature bucks in the herd, might be right thing to do."

Most of us QDM folks aren't asking for wholesale changes but some small changes taht won't affect anyone but the guy who shoots 3 fork horns a year. I really don't see what the "anti change" crowd is affraid of, you might just like what you see.

[DaveT]

• Reducing the overall harvest -- which would likely be necessary -- to increase the percentage of older bucks in a region's herd likely would trigger a falloff in the number of people who hunt deer.

I say it depends how you do it. If you eliminate party hunting for bucks, you will reduce the overall harvest, but will you see anybody quit? No, but you will see fewer licenses sold as guys who used to tag multiple bucks for people who don't even hunt will now have to stop doing that for fear of being reported. Once it is illegal to cross tag bucks nobody will be able to brag to the guys at work that they killed 4 bucks this year because they might get caught, if they can't brag about it, maybe they'll stop doing it.

I wonder how many tags are sold each year to people who never actually hunt? 10,000? 20,000? You can't count those people as hunters when they stop buying tags next year.

[deerminator]

As would I. I'd be willing to bet its much more than 20,000. I think there are a lot of guys that think of it like they do going a mile or two over the speed limit.

[96trigger]

They (Anderson and DNR) have got to be reading the posts on here. Anderson discussed every thing we have said and made many of the same valid points that those on here have. SEMN is going to be a guinnea pig for the rest of the state. All I can say is please, please, please, no EAB.

[RuttenBuck]

Quote:

• Reducing the overall harvest -- which would likely be necessary -- to increase the percentage of older bucks in a region's herd likely would trigger a falloff in the number of people who hunt deer.

Do they forget that if MN becomes well-known for giant whitetails that we will have a huge increase in out-of-state licenses? These same people will be staying in our hotels, eating at our restaurants, buying our gas, and shopping in our sporting goods stores. Yes, the demand for leases will increase but we are fortunate to live in a state with a lot of public land.

[RuttenBuck]

And to add to my non-resident license increase comments, look at Camp Ripley as a prime example. If you have ever hunted the archery hunt there, I'm sure you have noticed the number of license plates that are not from MN. I would really like to know the number of non-residents applying for Ripley. Does anyone know this?

[chub]

Do they forget that if MN becomes well-known for giant whitetails that we will have a huge increase in out-of-state licenses? These same people will be staying in our hotels, eating at our restaurants, buying our gas, and shopping in our sporting goods stores. Yes, the demand for leases will increase but we are fortunate to live in a state with a lot of public land.

That's just what we need.....

Outfitters leasing up everything they can all the people that lost the leases going "public"....the OOSER freelancer's going public, we could really fastforward "let's push the average guy" out of wanting or being able to hunt trend.

I'm not sure the OOSER's money is any better than weekly or weekend warrior from the cities that enjoys hunting.

You turn something into the "go to" destination, and it's likely to morph from what you know now, into something completely different, and someone's got to get the bad end of the stick.

[deerminator]

I hope it doesn't become a guniea pig for the rest of the state. What works for SEMN doesn't work for West Central and Northeast and so on. In the lated edition of Outdoor News, I believe one of the so-called experts from the organizations lobbying for the DNR to drop bigger bucks onto their laps said such management tactics have to be regional and localized. If that's true and that's what the DNR ends up doing, look for the regs and rule book to get even more complicated, just what we need. I said in the rules thread in the other forum and I'll say it again - the role of government is supposed to be LIMITED. That is, the DNR should do the minimum they need to do to give hunters a shot at A DEER, ANY DEER, each year, and then its up to the hunter to determine his or her standards and make fulfilling them a reality. What's next, I can't shoot does with fawns because some sportsmans group thinks they have a better survival rate with mama or because its cruel? Or some sportsmans group deems albino or piebald deer sacred and off-limits to hunting so we enact another regulation protecting them? No thank you. My philisophy - and that of many others - if the vocal minority cares - The DNR should establish and enforce the bare minimum rules that result in a healthy whitetail population, set the appropriate bag limits to keep it that way, and get out of the way.

[james_walleye]

You do realize that a healthy whitetail population includes a better buck/doe ratio and better buck age structure than what the state has don't you? You don't set bare minimum rules and get a healthy whitetail herd. A healthy herd is more than just having alot of deer running around for people to shoot. If you want pure numbers thats all good, but its not necessarily healthy.

[deerminator]

Yes. And you do realize managing for monster bucks with a certain number of points doesn't necessarily mean you'll have a good buck to ratio, don't you? You can have a lot of deer and a good buck to do ratio if managed right. But you don't have to restrict people to only shooting a 12 point buck or larger to do that.

[Bear55]

Originally Posted By: RuttenBuck

Do they forget that if MN becomes well-known for giant whitetails that we will have a huge increase in out-of-state licenses? These same people will be staying in our hotels, eating at our restaurants, buying our gas, and shopping in our sporting goods stores. Yes, the demand for leases will increase but we are fortunate to live in a state with a lot of public land.

That's just what we need.....

Outfitters leasing up everything they can all the people that lost the leases going "public"....the OOSER freelancer's going public, we could really fastforward "let's push the average guy" out of wanting or being able to hunt trend.

I'm not sure the OOSER's money is any better than weekly or weekend warrior from the cities that enjoys hunting.

You turn something into the "go to" destination, and it's likely to morph from what you know now, into something completely different, and someone's got to get the bad end of the stick.

Land access is going to be hard to come by no matter what. It will either be outfitters or qdm guys with deep pockets who want to manage their own land. Not to mention a growing population usually eats up land faster than any outfitter or outdoorsman could ever manage.

[Bear55]

I hope it doesn't become a guniea pig for the rest of the state. What works for SEMN doesn't work for West Central and Northeast and so on. In the lated edition of Outdoor News, I believe one of the so-called experts from the organizations lobbying for the DNR to drop bigger bucks onto their laps said such management tactics have to be regional and localized. If that's true and that's what the DNR ends up doing, look for the regs and rule book to get even more complicated, just what we need. I said in the rules thread in the other forum and I'll say it again - the role of government is supposed to be LIMITED. That is, the DNR should do the minimum they need to do to give hunters a shot at A DEER, ANY DEER, each year, and then its up to the hunter to determine his or her standards and make fulfilling them a reality. What's next, I can't shoot does with fawns because some sportsmans group thinks they have a better survival rate with mama or because its cruel? Or some sportsmans group deems albino or piebald deer sacred and off-limits to hunting so we enact another regulation protecting them? No thank you. My philisophy - and that of many others - if the vocal minority cares - The DNR should establish and enforce the bare minimum rules that result in a healthy whitetail population, set the appropriate bag limits to keep it that way, and get out of the way.

You already have to check the area you hunt to know if you are in a lotto, managed, or intensive harbest area. Add a few words to those lines and it really doesn't complicate things all that much.

For example:

Lotto Area - Brown Its Down

Managed Area - No Party Hunting for Bucks

Intensive Harvest - No Party Hunting for Bucks + Antler Restrictions

Not all that complicated.

[james_walleye]

I hate to break it to you but when a deer herd has a proper buck/doe ratio and has proper age structure the side effect is numbers of mature deer. MN doesnt manage for that, they manage for public opinion and to make sure people can understand the seasons. To heck with managing for the deer herd itself and making people be accountable for actually reading the game laws.

[propster]

James, don't you know this is Minnesota? How could we ever think of wanting that? I myself certainly don't want to have to read an extra half page or page of regulations. I'm sure relieved I probably won't have to. Kudos, and well said.

[HC Eye Hunter]

If this state is going to ever effectivly manage this deer herd it needs to adopt a drawing system in different zones throughout the state. There are too many variables such as topography, hunting preasure and holding capacities to regulate minnesota's deer herd with over the counter sales. The states that manage by drawing systems have much better buck to doe ratios and harvest way more mature bucks. End of story

[Black_Bay]

If this state is going to ever effectivly manage this deer herd it needs to adopt a drawing system in different zones throughout the state. There are too many variables such as topography, hunting preasure and holding capacities to regulate minnesota's deer herd with over the counter sales. The states that manage by drawing systems have much better buck to doe ratios and harvest way more mature bucks. End of story

You can wish in one hand and ____ in the other and see which one gets full faster with that idea.

[picksbigwagon]

Which states? are they near us or are we talking the Southwestern United States?

[HC Eye Hunter]

South Dakota, North Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, I believe Iowa, Colorado, Montana where do you want me too stop.

Nice comment Black. I guess I will _____ in the other!

[Black_Bay]

You do make a good point in "There are too many variables such as topography, hunting preasure and holding capacities to regulate minnesota's deer herd" but the idea of a buck lottery would probably drive people away from the sport. The DNR is putting a lot of effort towards hunter and angler recruitment and retention. They aren't going to do anything to push people away.

[elkhuntingfan]

It seems as though the biggest hurdle to any changes in the management of the deer herd has been public opinion. If change is to come, it probably has to come slowly. If the DNR imposes no party hunting for bucks, you shouldn't see hunters moving away from the sport. What you may see is more people passing up that spike of forkhorn the first couple days of the season, hoping to connect on a larger buck. The deer learn awful fast, and you can expect more mature bucks down the road. It seems that it is often the same guys filling most of the tags. If limited to one buck, the hunting parties may not take as many bucks overall thus improving the buck/doe ratio. The end of party hunting for bucks as a start seems like the most logical first step.

[96trigger]

I know a lot of people are going to think enforcing the "no party hunting for bucks" rule will be impossible, but it is a start. You've got to think that there are some law abiding sportsman out there. I wouldn't even be able to ask anyone for their tag, as now you are asking them to break the law also.

[NoWiser]

I used to be a member of the "brown its down" club, until I had the opportunity to bowhunt in WI for 5 seasons while I was going to college. Before that time I had seen exactly one buck in 6 years of hunting MN. After much searching, I found some private land to hunt on for free, surrounded by QDM land. The first evening hunting I saw a small 10 pointer and couldn't believe it (I hadn't seen a 10 pointer in my life before that). During the next two months I hunted hard, and couldn't even count the # of bucks I saw, including a handful of true monsters. I never imagined you could have deer hunting like that. I rattled in a minimum of 5 bucks that season, and had the opportunity to see multiple bucks chasing one doe. I didn't shoot a buck that season, but passed up on many, and I'm sure it will go down as the greatest deer season of my life. The next four years were almost as good. I never did shoot a buck, but saw a ton of them, and got enough does to eat like a king during the school year.

Then I graduated and moved back to MN, and I've seen exactly one buck since then (a basket 8 that I passed which got shot as soon as it walked over the next hill.) I've been trying to think of how MN could ever have hunting like I experienced in school, and I think the no-party hunting for bucks would help.

Although I personally would be fine with point-restrictions, I think they are a very bad idea. Everybody hunts for a different reason, and if someone enjoys shooting the first deer they see no matter what it is, that is great! I'll give you a high-five and help you drag it out of the woods. The "no party hunting for bucks" is a good compromise, I think, for everyone. There are members of my hunting party that like to stack up the spikes and forks like firewood every year. It is the same ones that do it year after year. Maybe if they knew that their first buck of the season would also be their last, they would think about it before pulling the trigger, and a few more would survive to grow up.

While I know that I will never have hunting in MN like I did those few years at school, it would be great to see it head in that direction, not just for me, but for everyone that deer hunts. Also, I don't know a single person that would quit hunting if they couldn't party-hunt for bucks. Some might grumble a little the first year or two, or until they start seeing more bigger bucks. Should the rule be enforced in lottery areas?? That I don't know......

Sorry for the long post. Just my 2 (or 3) cents.

[picksbigwagon]

96trigger, you have worn me down, I am beginning to see that maybe we need to implement no buck party hunting. I think enforcement is impossible, but I am slowly (it's me, I don't change with the wind) seeing the need for it, begrudingly. I am not there completely but if it does change, it won't bother me too much. Enforcement will be impossible, but the GOMERS are gonna do what ever they want to do.....whether it is deer season or not