I hunt where they have a minimum 4 pt side to be legal (SE Minnesota) but have not seen much improvement other than many basket deer. I am against antler point restrictions figuring a deer is a trophy to different people for different reasons and why should we legally change that.
That said, wondering if there is a better way. Alternating years-one year-4pt minimum, next year, smaller only, that way these basket deer survive to get big.
Thoughts?
Samfox, I said as much in my post. For the most part now, we have a 1 size fits all plan. Doesn't capitalize on the differences in habitat/climate/etc or recognize the differences in hunter preferences. Look at what the DNR does for fisheries management. There are numbers lakes, trophy lakes, and lakes managed with different key species in mind.
Lakeshiner, I agree access is an issue. It is an issue that will continue to get worse if much of the state has poor hunting. Areas of good hunting and habitat will continue you to be bought up and leased up, while those displaced will be on ever crowded public lands. That is why I believe changes to rules and fee increases are needed to create quality hunting experiences on public lands(widespread, as I know there are narrow such opportunities now). We are hunting on private lands now because of this. My dad in the '90's wanted bigger bucks and better hunting. We bought land in Shawano County. We have since expanded a few times with us and friends buying adjoining properties as they have become available.
I believe another big challenge is changing the mindset at the DNR of what constitutes opportunity. They seem to be hung up on equating tags with opportunity, and I have seen as much in quotes from them on some areas with regards to quota setting. I view opportunity by the quality of that opportunity. I look at out west. Sure there are some different variables, but quality hunting can be readily found on public lands out there. I have hunted both Colorado and Wyoming and done well. I am building up points and planning future trips. Does it take a few years? Sure. Are the tags pricey? Sure. However, the public land experience out there is awesome. That is why it can be fairly easy to find private lands you can go on, cheap tresspass fees, etc if you want because there is not the massive difference in the quality of hunt and quantity/quality of animals between public and private lands out there.
Some good ideas, but, I hunt northern Vilas county. Most cases by us a 1.5 year old is a spike and most likely not a legal buck, 2.5 year olds are forks or maybe a 6, 3.5 year olds maybe a small eight. That's a long time to dodge wolves. My point is this state is very diverse from north to south in deer density, genitics and food sources. Don't know if we can have a on size fits all in this state.
Lots of great ideas. I have been clamoring for a 1 buck per hunter per year for years (regardless of weapon), and have verbally assaulted allowing group bagging for rifle hunting. Makes the rules and seasons simpler, and would automatically improve the success rate of antlered deer harvest. This would also reduce hunter density as many hunters who harvest a buck with a bow simply wont go rifle hunting. Would be tough to enforce stoppage of group bagging, but some people do actually abide by the law. I would rather see an increase to a $30/tag charge and not have to worry about buying archery licenses and gun licenses separately. You would have to increase the price of a deer tag to make up for the loss of people who buy both archery and rifle tags.
Every buck that gets passed up has a better chance to make it another year. Every buck that gets passed up could very well be shot by a young hunter later in the season. More people would have success, which equates to more people hunting in the future. The benefits inherent to reducing buck tag availability. I know many that shoot a buck during bow season and rifle season annually. I know many that shoot 3-4 small bucks a year because of group bagging. Quite hoggish I believe.
Antler restrictions - I am basically for antler restrictions, but believe reducing the buck harvest to 1/year is really a required first step. Michigan I still believe has antler restrictions on the second buck harvested which isn't a horrible idea. The problem with antler restrictions are they would never pass in CWD areas as older bucks are believed to be of greater risk to transmitting CWD. Hard to see the the State agreeing to that.
I get the idea of limiting public land tags but I think in the end you'll be creating a new kind of problem. That works out west where hunter densities are far less. Here you have guys who maybe can only hunt certain areas of the state and they won't be able to chase tags around. You'll end up with a large group of irritated hunters saying you are catering to the privatization of the deer herd. Not my words, just something you read from time to time as a common complaint from that type of idea.
For the guys who benefit from that though, they'll be ecstatic. Like I said before, hunters are about me, me, me.
Personally I do hunt mostly public lands. I've hunted in east, central, and northern parts of the state. I don't think the hunting is that bad overall. Sure gun season may be a zoo near more populated areas, that's why I hunt up north. No people problem there. I've not really had issues for archery, I think the longer season spreads out pressure more. I also believe that not everyone can find the public lands. They rely on a big sign instead of a platbook or mapping utility. Big signs congregate people.
I think the doe tag separation was a step in the right direction, we just need to give it a few years to work its way through. This year should see some dividends of that. I've never been much of a believer in the buck harvest being a huge factor seeing it has a 25% success rate, all seasons included. We tend to associate with like minded people so we may all know guys who shoot bucks, but in reality its 1 out of 4 people. That includes any group baggers. A few may do it but in the big picture its not many.
Wisconsin already has antler point restrictions....one point on one side 3" or longer. That being said there is no real biological reason to implement APR's. Reproductive capacity would not change you'd just have the age structure shift over one year. All this would do is push harvest off one year making the six point the new spiker. That might make it a little more gratifying for the guy who pays all those taxes just to have some slob public hunter shoot one of "his" deer I guess. Me, I'd just sawzall the antlers off and throw them in the box with the rest of them.
I think a lot of us get in the trap of thinking everyone is shooting deer. Remember on average people shoot less than 1 buck per year. 600,000 hunters but we don't shoot 600,000 bucks. I don't think a limit of 1 per person would do anything drastic like people think it would. Many people don't even shoot A deer much less a buck.
Access is a big issue. Think of all the spots closed to hunting, there are a lot. Its great if there are a ton of doe tags but if I can't hunt there it does me no good.
While I'm all for looking at options on improving the age structure of bucks in the state, I'm a bit torn on antler point restrictions. First, there are too many clowns who have no business being in the woods that can't properly identify a target that will be wasting smaller bucks. Second, I don't think they are appropriate for northern wisconsin given predator and winter kill concerns.
I like the 1 buck limit regardless of weapon. I own land, pay taxes, and am part of a camp that spends a lot of time and money on habitat improvement, but I don't believe I should get another buck tag as a result.
I think group bagging for bucks needs to get, and for does as well. In the areas where deer need to be thinned, antlerless tags are easy to come by, no reason you can't shoot your own.
Here's a crazy idea, what about creating some draw units for buck tags as a way to decrease buck harvest. You might value your tag a little more if you had to wait a year or 2 to get it. Plus, I've never heard anyone say that they have too many bucks. Never.
I have areas where guys put in food plots to bring deer to their property which essentially pulls them away from public lands. This isn't an opinion, it does happen. I'm sure its not way prevalent or anything, but its a factor to consider. The spot I'm thinking of is really obvious. I don't blame the guy though, who wouldn't do that if they could? Remember how many guys complain that baiters do that too? Same principle.
In fact I see it all the time on public lands without the food plot element. Just gun season alone brings an orange army in some places and the pressure pushes the deer out of those properties. My father-in-law hunts a private 40 that connects to a chunk of public and every opening day he has deer coming out of the public to get away from all the people who just walked in. He'll see orange on the far side of the marsh and the deer are coming from that way. Those guys probably think there are no deer, but in reality they just pushed them all out. Go back after the season when the deer have a chance to settle down, and magically you'll see deer again.
I think some public areas just have a people problem.
No that doesn't work yet Publiclandhunter. The point I'm making is that one section of state land might be really good and another really bad. The national forests are huge and the deer populations vary throughout them. If you live near the bad section you just assume its all bad. In reality its not at all, I know some very good public spots. Then throw in the ability factor.
So when someone says 'public land sucks' or 'I shot this off public land', I really have no idea what that means. Maybe it was great, maybe it luck, who really knows...way to broad.
Minnesota does have a 1 buck per year limit, not per weapon. So that is covered. I just feel people have different reasons to shoot deer and how we limit that is tough.
I know some people/groups that have enough land locked up that they self impose rules. I do like that idea-rather than the state doing it. But, doesn't help public land hunters or those with small parcels.
I just wish hunting shows didn't focus only on how many inches and field scoring deer. Pass on what you want, shoot what you want (legally).
I was just wondering if an every other year could be effective for growing bigger deer.
