Antler Point Restrictions

[Musky Buck]

I'm with all of you believe it or not. Half the AR thing is many of us are tired of the guys and gals that pile up every buck they can get a fair shot at. Definitely get rid of buck party hunting first. Then we need to analyze the effectiveness of it and hopefully that would do it. I hear ya on the money thing, but as ACDC sings...Money Talks and unfortunately that leaves most of us out of the conversation.

[DaveT]

If turning up the turnips is illegal, then I'm against it. I read right through that part and didn't catch it. We are only seeing much success with clover, even that isn't much of a draw during the fall, when there's corn and beans everywhere.

[96trigger]

I would imagine a turnip plot in Northern Minnesota would be a major attractant. Down here in SEMN, they prefer the corn, alfalfa and clover. Really no need for food plots.

[Musky Buck]

I am aware of a food plot that was meant for deer, lately it has been covered with turkeys and a few pheasants scratching to. The deer are just starting to hit it again and I bet they appreciate finding something green to eat at this time of the year.

[Ice Chicken]

Maybe I should have given a little back ground on how I hunt and what I am seeing. Between our hunting party and the one down the road there are 12 hunters. Out of those 12 only 2 will shot does. I am one of of the 2. In the last 20 years I have shot 2 bucks not small ones and the rest of the deer have been does. No one shoots the small bucks but you have 10 guys all trying to take the big boys which is fine with me if that is what they want to do. But then why should any one be surprised in a drop in the number of nice bucks? Was kind of wondering if any one else has seen this in there area? So I am asking those in favor of AR which would lead to a restriction on what people will be able to shoot on the lower end of the buck population just what on the upper end are you willing to give up? Nothing? Or maybe once you have taken say a 10 pointer or bigger you could not take another one for 5 to 10 years therefor giving your fellow hunters a chance at a nice buck? Or would something like that not fly? After all asking one group of hunters to give up something with nothing in return doesn't quit seem fair does it? Or maybe to some it does. By passing up legal bucks is not giving up anything in my opinion because they are legal to shoot aren't they?

[james_walleye]

Hey Peatmoss, AR would be a forced selective harvest reg just as walleye slots are. Walleye slots were put in place to benefit the fisheries and since the DNR doesnt manage our deer herd for "trophies", AR would be put in place for the benefit of the age structure of the deer herd.

Answer this question peat, or anybody. The DNR doesnt manage our deer herd for trophies, they have stated this many times. Why then are they kicking around these ideas? Could it be because they possibly realize there is an issue

The issue of the age structure in our buck population isnt biological?? What is it then?

[Bear55]

Good post PEAT. Again I will say I'm not really for AR and would prefer no party hunting for bucks. Like others have said, plowing the turnups just before the season certainly sounds like an illegal move that give them an unfair advantage. Aside from that can you really blame the guys buying and leasing up land, its the way the hunting world is going like it or not. It could also be a byproduct of the poor hunting we have, guys want to manage their own land for betting hunting and they have every right to do that.

As for not liking the term "meat hunter" or for those saying its like talking to a brick wall don't make ma laugh. You meat hunters or traditionalist have plenty of names for us QDM guys and certinaly have an equal if not greater brick wall mentality so please save it.

[certified jumbo]

still good conversations guys. i would say we all have different idea's and thoughts and certianly there is nothing wrong with that. in time, we are going to see some changes in laws. it probably won't be this year, maybe the following year or years down the road. i don't know, but change is coming. a good start i think many of us agree, would be banning party hunting for bucks. it certianly seems logical from most perspectives. then lets see where that takes us.

secondly, i see some conversion on potlatch land. at first i was dissappoited when i saw they were leasing thier lands. but after crunching some numbers. this was a great deal. we lease a 180 potlatch for around 1200. we have 6 guys, thats only 200 bucks a guy a year. if you owned it yourself, you'd pay more in taxes!!! in the big picture of deer hunting and land, thats incredibly cheap beyond belief.

[RuttenBuck]

Peat -

I understand your concerns especially about losing access to hunting land. Like it or not, this is way hunting has become and will only continue down this path. I would suggest like other people have mentioned to try and get a group together and find a lease for yourself. Also, there is still private land out there that does not get hunted and I'm sure if you looked hard enough, you would be able to find something.

I do disagree with you though on your assumption it takes 3.5 years for most deer in your area to get 8 pts. I would be willing to bet a very large percentage are at this point by 2.5 years of age. It is unfortunate that we have to try to impose regulations to balance the herd when hunters like yourself do take a fair share of both bucks and does. You are not the cause of the un-natural buck to doe ratio we have. It is the hunters who think they need to shoot a buck no matter the size and have been doing this since the days they have probably started hunting. I agree with most that AR is not our best option and would rather see less imposing regulations as no more buck party hunting and moving the season back, but would take AR if it came down to it. I also think hunters over-react and claim we are taking away chances for their success only to improve our own. Yes, their may be a season or two where we harvest less deer (bucks) because of additional restrictions but that will only increase EVERYONE'S odds in the following years. More bucks equals a more intense rut which leads to more daytime activity which makes for a more eventful and successful hunt. There is nothing better than hearing a buck crashing through the swamp chasing a doe.

I wish you luck in your quest to find hunting land along with others in your situation and hope as hunters we can agree to meet in the middle somewhere.

[propster]

Ice, I think you answered your own question. You shot 2 good bucks in twenty years. I don't think we have to worry too much about too many people killing a big one every year. But it sure would be nice to see more of them, and that would allow all of us to be more selective.

[BobT]

One question that seems to keep coming up in my mind with regard to party hunting bucks is this. What reason would a group of hunters have for specifically targeting multiple young/small bucks rather than taking a combination of bucks and does? You make it sound like they are out there on a shooting range with bucks and does pacing back and forth in front of them and they are on some kind of shooting rampage targeting the bucks only.

If a hunter is not interested in the size or age of his target, wouldn't it be just as likely he or she would take a doe as a buck? I don't understand.

Like in our party, we don't specifically target bucks. We'll take a doe if we're licensed to do so just as easily as a buck. In fact, a doe typically provides much nicer cuts of meat in my opinion.

Bob

[Bear55]

BobT

Some hunters have been raised on shooting bucks and letting does live to help the population. Its been this way for so long that I think its in their dna. I hunt with a couple of guys that alwasy manage to pass up a bunch of does and shoot a small buck, or a doe and a young buck come in and they shoot the buck even though they have a doe tag in their pocket. Some years they take multiple small bucks. They do shot does from time to time but only when they don't have an opportunity to shoot a buck. I have tried everything I can think of to get them to shoot a does instead but its no use.

You also have to take into consideration that these young bucks are always on the move this time of year, they lack the experience to survive and are very vulnerable to a hunters bullet. I don't know how many times I have heard of guys taking a shot and the young buck just stands there waiting for another bullet to come flying his way.

The whole shoot any buck mentality has been burned into the brains of these hunters be cause that is the what the regulations have allowed them to shoot for so long. Until we change up a few laws or educate these people not much will change. Education seems like it would be easy, but that is hardly the case.

Us QDMers guys are really not out to take your deer away. We have experience the thrill of encountering or shooting a mature buck and we would love to share that experince with others. I honestly get just as excited when someone else in our party takes a nice buck as a do when I shoot one. Its something a yearling buck just can't provide unless you are a young or new hunter, and we are certainly not against young or new hunters shooting anything they want. Any change to the buck party hunting laws is going to benefit all hunters, not just the die hard QDM guys, just imagine if one dear season an extra 5 or 10 thousand hunters shot the biggest buck of their lives. Wouldn't those experiences be much more enjoyable for them and the future of hunting then some guy shooting is 40th or 50th yearly buck in half that many years?

[propster]

You hit it on the head Bear. Bob, not all are at least somewhat selective like your crew. As Bear said, there are many, many out there, my dad included until we started to expose him to a different way of looking at it, and now he even passes smaller bucks; who look down on shooting does but think nothing of popping the first scrub that comes along and are very proud of it. Now that to me is fine - once a year. It's the guys who shoot that one, and then their nephew's, and then their cousin's, until they've piled up a few of them, and for what?

[Big Dave2]

How about we get back on track here. This thread is about antler restrictions, not party hunting, moving the season out of the rut or baiting vs. food plots.

If you get right down to it and YOU had to vote on an antler restriction of lets say 4 points on each side, would you vote yes or no?

[Big Dave2]

Hey Peatmoss, AR would be a forced selective harvest reg just as walleye slots are. Walleye slots were put in place to benefit the fisheries and since the DNR doesnt manage our deer herd for "trophies", AR would be put in place for the benefit of the age structure of the deer herd.

Answer this question peat, or anybody. The DNR doesnt manage our deer herd for trophies, they have stated this many times. Why then are they kicking around these ideas? Could it be because they possibly realize there is an issue

The issue of the age structure in our buck population isnt biological?? What is it then?

They are kicking around these ideas because of public opinion. I don't think it has much to do with science or we would already have these regulations in place.

[PEATMOSS]

Hey Peatmoss, AR would be a forced selective harvest reg just as walleye slots are. Walleye slots were put in place to benefit the fisheries and since the DNR doesnt manage our deer herd for "trophies", AR would be put in place for the benefit of the age structure of the deer herd.

Answer this question peat, or anybody. The DNR doesnt manage our deer herd for trophies, they have stated this many times. Why then are they kicking around these ideas? Could it be because they possibly realize there is an issue

The issue of the age structure in our buck population isnt biological?? What is it then?

As I understand them, walleye slots were put into place to protect the prime breeding females, thereby increasing the overall population. .In this scenario, everyone sacrifices and gains equally. As I stated in previous posts, the desire for more large antlered deer is a social, not biological consideration. I think I made a reasonable case in my longwinded post that this will have a much more lopsided sacrifice/gain depending on which side you're on.

C,mon guys, my argument isn't that my way or your way is better. It's about choice. I RESPECT THE CHOICE YOU HAVE MADE AND I RESPECT YOUR RIGHT TO ATTEMPT TO PERSEUDE OTHERS. BUT WHAT MAKES YOU FOLKS SO DOGGONED DETERMINED TO FORCE, BY LAW YOUR VALUES ON THE REST OF US???

[PEATMOSS]

How about we get back on track here. This thread is about antler restrictions, not party hunting, moving the season out of the rut or baiting vs. food plots.

If you get right down to it and YOU had to vote on an antler restriction of lets say 4 points on each side, would you vote yes or no?

I had a real slow night at work the other night and kinda went off on a big rant. I think I more or less spun this thread 9 different directions.My bad.

[propster]

Good point Peat, but in a way I guess many of us feel that your values are currently forced by law onto us. Remember, slavery and lots of other things used to be "legal" in this country until somebody's "values" started a movement to change the law. Now don't everybody get your undies in a bunch - I'm not comparing slavery to shooting deer, just pointing out how many laws get made or changed. And I would say we're just arguing on the internet, not trying to force our values on anyone, though we probably are trying to get others to see things from a different perspective, just as you are.

[skee0025]

f you get right down to it and YOU had to vote on an antler restriction of lets say 4 points on each side, would you vote yes or no?

No

[skee0025]

Good point Peat, but in a way I guess many of us feel that your values are currently forced by law onto us.

Not even close..If the deer isnt up to your standards dont pull the trigger, no one is forcing you to. But to pass a law saying I cant pull the trigger because the deer in my sights isnt up to your standards................

Just so my position is clear. Since I got out of the Service in 1998 I have taken 1 Buck and the rest were does. I hunt Wisconsin and Minnesota. The one buck I chose to take was a big bodied 6. From what I've seen QMD'ers advocate I would not have been "allowed" to shoot that buck because it didnt meet their "standards".

[Bear55]

f you get right down to it and YOU had to vote on an antler restriction of lets say 4 points on each side, would you vote yes or no?

No

If it came down to AR or nothing I would vote for AR, however I think there are better options out there so its very unlikely that would ever happen.

[Musky Buck]

Agree with Bear, yes to AR if we can't tame down the buck party hunting. I hear a lot of guys saying they don't want to see AR and I hear that in another sentence you hear about the against saying I've only taken 1 buck in so many years etc. There's another reason for AR or stopping buck party hunting, because a lot of bucks in your area are probably already gunned down, too much pressure on the horns. I really think a lot of hunters are waiting for that buck, lots of bucks only on opening day or weekend, then try to fill those doe permits.

[james_walleye]

Originally Posted By: james_walleye

Hey Peatmoss, AR would be a forced selective harvest reg just as walleye slots are. Walleye slots were put in place to benefit the fisheries and since the DNR doesnt manage our deer herd for "trophies", AR would be put in place for the benefit of the age structure of the deer herd.

Answer this question peat, or anybody. The DNR doesnt manage our deer herd for trophies, they have stated this many times. Why then are they kicking around these ideas? Could it be because they possibly realize there is an issue

The issue of the age structure in our buck population isnt biological?? What is it then?

They are kicking around these ideas because of public opinion. I don't think it has much to do with science or we would already have these regulations in place.

And there my friend you just said what really torks me, managing a deer herd based on public opinion rather than on biology.

[james_walleye]

Originally Posted By: james_walleye

Hey Peatmoss, AR would be a forced selective harvest reg just as walleye slots are. Walleye slots were put in place to benefit the fisheries and since the DNR doesnt manage our deer herd for "trophies", AR would be put in place for the benefit of the age structure of the deer herd.

Answer this question peat, or anybody. The DNR doesnt manage our deer herd for trophies, they have stated this many times. Why then are they kicking around these ideas? Could it be because they possibly realize there is an issue

The issue of the age structure in our buck population isnt biological?? What is it then?

As I understand them, walleye slots were put into place to protect the prime breeding females, thereby increasing the overall population. .In this scenario, everyone sacrifices and gains equally. As I stated in previous posts, the desire for more large antlered deer is a social, not biological consideration. I think I made a reasonable case in my longwinded post that this will have a much more lopsided sacrifice/gain depending on which side you're on.

C,mon guys, my argument isn't that my way or your way is better. It's about choice. I RESPECT THE CHOICE YOU HAVE MADE AND I RESPECT YOUR RIGHT TO ATTEMPT TO PERSEUDE OTHERS. BUT WHAT MAKES YOU FOLKS SO DOGGONED DETERMINED TO FORCE, BY LAW YOUR VALUES ON THE REST OF US???

Hey peat just remember there are alot of people in MN that don't want to put back a 22" walleye just as there is alot of people who don't want to be forced to pass up a buck. Lets not pretend that everyone is happy with walleye slots and that everyone benefits equally on the deal. Walleye slots are a 2 way street just as potential restrictions on which bucks could be harvested. 10 years ago you could have said the same thing about letting a 22" walleye go, that it was a social decision. No one knew just how positive the outcome would be on a fishery just as right now no one has any clue how positive AR could be for the age structure of our bucks.

[PEATMOSS]

Originally Posted By: PEATMOSS

Originally Posted By: james_walleye

Hey Peatmoss, AR would be a forced selective harvest reg just as walleye slots are. Walleye slots were put in place to benefit the fisheries and since the DNR doesnt manage our deer herd for "trophies", AR would be put in place for the benefit of the age structure of the deer herd.

Answer this question peat, or anybody. The DNR doesnt manage our deer herd for trophies, they have stated this many times. Why then are they kicking around these ideas? Could it be because they possibly realize there is an issue

The issue of the age structure in our buck population isnt biological?? What is it then?

As I understand them, walleye slots were put into place to protect the prime breeding females, thereby increasing the overall population. .In this scenario, everyone sacrifices and gains equally. As I stated in previous posts, the desire for more large antlered deer is a social, not biological consideration. I think I made a reasonable case in my longwinded post that this will have a much more lopsided sacrifice/gain depending on which side you're on.

C,mon guys, my argument isn't that my way or your way is better. It's about choice. I RESPECT THE CHOICE YOU HAVE MADE AND I RESPECT YOUR RIGHT TO ATTEMPT TO PERSEUDE OTHERS. BUT WHAT MAKES YOU FOLKS SO DOGGONED DETERMINED TO FORCE, BY LAW YOUR VALUES ON THE REST OF US???

Hey peat just remember there are alot of people in MN that don't want to put back a 22" walleye just as there is alot of people who don't want to be forced to pass up a buck. Lets not pretend that everyone is happy with walleye slots and that everyone benefits equally on the deal. Walleye slots are a 2 way street just as potential restrictions on which bucks could be harvested. 10 years ago you could have said the same thing about letting a 22" walleye go, that it was a social decision. No one knew just how positive the outcome would be on a fishery just as right now no one has any clue how positive AR could be for the age structure of our bucks.

I think we're going to have to respectfully agree to disagree on this. Again, as I see it, the walleye slots were designed to protect the prime breeding females, thereby increasing the overall population. APR would protect younger bucks so that they could grow bigger antlers. The desire among some to manage our deer herd for antlers has nothing to do with the overall health of the herd, it is simply a value judgement.