Hunter Managed Herds

[bat man]

I feel the effort needs to include public land hunters. In some areas, much of the hunt is on public land. Deer hunters need to know that they can make a difference. Deer organizations need pressure to speak with a strong voice for the hunter. The message should not be targeted just to private land hunters or the message will reflect an elitest image. We want to get the message to the common ordinary guy who does not think deer every day of the year if we are going to succeed.

What if hunters refused to shoot does in Camp Ripley? An organized effort by Mn. bowhunters could accomplish this.

Public land will only be helped through state regulation.

The hot bite is always flooded with boats ready to take a limit.

Message to the public guys is if you give a crap get off the pot and be heard. Pressure your state group to make a statement for change, or be silent and quit hunting.

 

[Riggsgwp->]

Brooks maybe I misread the topic because a campaign to solely raise deer numbers would likely be easier than a campaign to manage the deer herd. Educating hunters on increasing their densities would likely follow the social media barrage of MDDI would it not? If we want to get into the intricacies of carrying capacity and so on then some of my points would be valid as part of the discussion. You have the ideas of the direction you want to go in your head so maybe it will be more clear for us once you start to lay it out.

 

[wiscwhip]

Message to the public guys is if you give a crap get off the pot and be heard. Pressure your state group to make a statement for change, or be silent and quit hunting.

Well in a nutshell, that's it, and the quicker that happens, the quicker real, meaningful change will come for you all. Without that, your efforts will only be as good as your neighbors.

 

[BuckSutherland]

All I want to know is how we are going to get the word out for all the people that don't read the ODN?

Lots of older hunters out there that don't get ODN, have a cell phone with FB or a computer.

No, but they still read the local newspaper. Perhaps we should draft a little letter to the editor that us members from all over that state can distribute to the local newspapers in our area. I am going to start asking some of these priest and pastors to include the health of our deer herd in the Sunday prayers too.

 

[bat man]

Brooks maybe I misread the topic because a campaign to solely raise deer numbers would likely be easier than a campaign to manage the deer herd. Educating hunters on increasing their densities would likely follow the social media barrage of MDDI would it not? If we want to get into the intricacies of carrying capacity and so on then some of my points would be valid as part of the discussion. You have the ideas of the direction you want to go in your head so maybe it will be more clear for us once you start to lay it out.

I believe very few realize how many deer the land can support. And we don't have to plant, plot, hinge or cut to support twice the deer.

Step 1 is to let guys know what the land can support.

Step 2 is show if we manage for 50% of that number, we are at maximum sustained yield (deer killed per square mile).

Step 3 is show what the MN DNR manages for.

step 3.5 is show what DNR said herd reduction would be

step 3.75 is how far their #1 metric (buck harvest) fell while they kept selling doe tags by the fistful

Step 4 is shows there is no science collected data to show we need to manage for that low number.

This may create guilt for killing anterless deer when it is counterprodctive to high hunter satisfaction. Killing does is selfish when your camp is dissatisfied with deer numbers.

 

[bueller]

Public land will only be helped through state regulation.

The hot bite is always flooded with boats ready to take a limit.

Message to the public guys is if you give a crap get off the pot and be heard. Pressure your state group to make a statement for change, or be silent and quit hunting.

I just typed a nearly identical statement on another thread, and then I came across this post of yours. Couldn't agree more. If there is ever to be substantial changes the people who issue the permits (DNR) must be onboard.

 

[bueller]

I'll add that many areas of private lands will also only see change through regulation. Especially areas where the parcels are on the smaller side.

 

[wiscwhip]

Especially the smaller parcels that border or are in proximity to large areas of public ground.

 

[dipper]

I just typed a nearly identical statement on another thread, and then I came across this post of yours. Couldn't agree more. If there is ever to be substantial changes the people who issue the permits (DNR) must be onboard.

Over the last 10 years I have heard from every biologist alive, we need stable herds for long term health. Please find me one biologist that wants more deer? Just one? Anywhere?
The left wing propaganda is nothing more than a right wing conspiracy. So get over the narrow minded, manipulation.
The biologists that run qdma, w
And qdma is run by biologists, they all want less populated herds!
The fact of the matter is, hunters are bipolar. Read the book, the history of deer hunting, hunters have always been bipolar, and they always will be. How you unite hunters in such a hysterical time, Cwd, is beyond achievable! For a decade, mass media has told us we need less deer, and it's worked.
This is a time where sudam Hussein has nuclear weapons, and we have to attack! In the fight of war on terror we are all in. If we had a crystal ball, we would never go into Iraq. For future generations, if Cwd is Iraq, the survival of the whitetail deer has proven, populations can recoup!
Like many things, our generation needs to bite the bullet and deal with it......or revolt? In a bipolar society mind you....what's that outcome????
What does mo say, blahahahaha!

 

[sandbur]

Over the last 10 years I have heard from every biologist alive, we need stable herds for long term health. Please find me one biologist that wants more deer? Just one? Anywhere?
The left wing propaganda is nothing more than a right wing conspiracy. So get over the narrow minded, manipulation.
The biologists that run qdma, w
And qdma is run by biologists, they all want less populated herds!
The fact of the matter is, hunters are bipolar. Read the book, the history of deer hunting, hunters have always been bipolar, and they always will be. How you unite hunters in such a hysterical time, Cwd, is beyond achievable! For a decade, mass media has told us we need less deer, and it's worked.
This is a time where sudam Hussein has nuclear weapons, and we have to attack! In the fight of war on terror we are all in. If we had a crystal ball, we would never go into Iraq. For future generations, if Cwd is Iraq, the survival of the whitetail deer has proven, populations can recoup!
Like many things, our generation needs to bite the bullet and deal with it......or revolt? In a bipolar society mind you....what's that outcome????
What does mo say, blahahahaha!

sorry, dipper but I can't follow this one.

 

[sandbur]

Public land will only be helped through state regulation.

The hot bite is always flooded with boats ready to take a limit.

Message to the public guys is if you give a crap get off the pot and be heard. Pressure your state group to make a statement for change, or be silent and quit hunting.

I strongly disagree.

We are giving up on a large number of hunters without even trying.

There are parcels of public land behind private lands. Their are parcels of public land in the north with less hunting pressure. Public land may never reach the potential of private lands, but we can make a difference. Camp Ripley is the perfect place to start and to get the message out. Brooks-I am going to try and give you a call this morning. I have an idea.

 

[sandbur]

No, but they still read the local newspaper. Perhaps we should draft a little letter to the editor that us members from all over that state can distribute to the local newspapers in our area. I am going to start asking some of these priest and pastors to include the health of our deer herd in the Sunday prayers too.

This might sound like a joke, but I am serious.
Put ads in local papers and insert he name of a local sporting club that is on board.

ROCKY RIDGE SPORTSMENS CLUB COMES OUT IN FAVOR OF GUN CONTROL (and bow control)
Gun Control (and bow control)..definition. 1.Informed groups of hunters making decisions if and where any doe tags should be filled. 2. Informed groups of hunters making decisions if young bucks should be killed. 3. Informed groups of hunters making decisions as to party hunting will be allowed by this group.

It gets attention and spurs discussion.

Just a 'Bur idea and not very well thought out.

 

[wiscwhip]

This might sound like a joke, but I am serious.
Put ads in local papers and insert he name of a local sporting club that is on board.

ROCKY RIDGE SPORTSMENS CLUB COMES OUT IN FAVOR OF GUN CONTROL (and bow control)
Gun Control (and bow control)..definition. 1.Informed groups of hunters making decisions if and where any doe tags should be filled. 2. Informed groups of hunters making decisions if young bucks should be killed. 3. Informed groups of hunters making decisions as to party hunting will be allowed by this group.

It gets attention and spurs discussion.

Just a 'Bur idea and not very well thought out.

You are on the right track bur, this is as good an angle as any I or anyone else has come up with thus far and I was thinking along these lines myself. Also, get some local mom and pop sporting goods store owners(or even big box if they would let you) on board and hang up poster sized "notices" with the data, relevant points, and contact info from Brooks' presentations inside the stores. If the owner is passionate enough about it, he may even be willing to answer questions for the patrons if they have them.

 

[sandbur]

Yep, same issue we had with the original MDDI "push". Getting something in local papers like Art stated is a good idea, but first there needs to be a way to reach all those local sportsman's groups. Which brings up another issue MDDI faced...$$$$ to get things done.

I think all we can do is one tiny step at a time.
Start discussion and let younger hunters get involved with the older hunters.

 

[bueller]

I continue to have serious doubts that your DNR will ever truely listen to what you "nobodys" are saying. I mean that with no disrespect, but that's probably what they think and say about you guys behind closed doors.

They will however be more willing to follow another DNR's model. I really believe the changes in WI (although several years late) will be successful in many areas. Bucks only again in the northern part of the state, and restricted amounts of doe tags in many other areas. Maybe a strong push to follow what WI is doing would taken more seriously. Because yes, in the end, it will be "their" (MN DNR) idea.

 

[wiscwhip]

I continue to have serious doubts that your DNR will ever truely listen to what you "nobodys" are saying. I mean that with no disrespect, but that's probably what they think and say about you guys behind closed doors.

They will however be more willing to follow another DNR's model. I really believe the changes in WI (although several years late) will be successful in many areas. Bucks only again in the northern part of the state, and restricted amounts of doe tags in many other areas. Maybe a strong push to follow what WI is doing would taken more seriously. Because yes, in the end, it will be "their" (MN DNR) idea.

I have been trying to get that point across in many of my posts for a while now as well bueller, I just haven't come right out and said it. So kudo's to you, I didn't want to look like I was saying our new management system was the only way or the best way. What we have isn't perfect, but it is better than it has ever been as far as the hunter having a voice in the management of the deer herd in WI. It still could use a bunch of tweaking. MN is one place that could use something like the split Farmland/Forested Zones similar to what we have in WI, given many units the guys describe have the same issues with habitat differences within those same units.

 

[j-bird]

[

I have been trying to get that point across in many of my posts for a while now as well bueller, I just haven't come right out and said it. So kudo's to you, I didn't want to look like I was saying our new management system was the only way or the best way. What we have isn't perfect, but it is better than it has ever been as far as the hunter having a voice in the management of the deer herd in WI. It still could use a bunch of tweaking. MN is one place that could use something like the split Farmland/Forested Zones similar to what we have in WI, given many units the guys describe have the same issues with habitat differences within those same units.

Wisc - talk to me about the WI system. I am told this is the way IN is heading (yep following the lead from WI). I am not familiar with it at all and the more I know now, the better. IN has a big difference in habitat as well - we have some areas of large hardwood forests and hills country, while others are parking lot flat and acres and acres of row crop.

 

[West Branch]

Has anyone talked to real estate agents or guys in similar professions? They are usually involved in local groups and should have more local connections. I am going to send an email to our local Agstar guy. He does lending for hunting land, farms, and logging in NE and north central MN. Also hunts about 1 mile away from our place. It would be interesting to hear his perspective, maybe we wouldn't like it, but I'll try to find out.

I wonder if we could sneak an advertisement into the hunting regulations, looks like a chunk of money :eek: minimum of 2k up to 7.3k! Probably wouldn't get the ad approved, but then you could use the rejection as marketing for "What the DNR didn't want you to know!"
http://sledder.net/?wpfb_dl=279

 

[wiscwhip]

[


Wisc - talk to me about the WI system. I am told this is the way IN is heading (yep following the lead from WI). I am not familiar with it at all and the more I know now, the better. IN has a big difference in habitat as well - we have some areas of large hardwood forests and hills country, while others are parking lot flat and acres and acres of row crop.

I will post some links when I get a chance, look them over and ask questions afterwards. A place like IN with no prior data collection will be interesting if they try this. It works well here because we have data going back to the 50's and 60's to gauge things by. Some of the new data metrics they are implementing in WI might be a good fit for somewhere with no prior data or questionable data, like the DNR actually "contracting" landowners to let them come in and put up trailcams to do herd surveys and the landowner reports the numbers and sends the pics directly to the DNR on a regular interval. Another good fit would be the Farmland/Forested split zones if your habitat has those issues. It really gives one more options for increasing the doe kill in problem areas and allowing adjacent areas to give out less antlerless permits to recover the herd numbers in those locations.

 

[bueller]

I have been trying to get that point across in many of my posts for a while now as well bueller, I just haven't come right out and said it. So kudo's to you, I didn't want to look like I was saying our new management system was the only way or the best way. What we have isn't perfect, but it is better than it has ever been as far as the hunter having a voice in the management of the deer herd in WI. It still could use a bunch of tweaking. MN is one place that could use something like the split Farmland/Forested Zones similar to what we have in WI, given many units the guys describe have the same issues with habitat differences within those same units.

I agree that it's not the only or the best way. Hell I'm may be crazy but I'm not stupid :). But it's definitely an improvement and appears to be headed in the right direction going forward. Defining public vs private and forest vs farmland was a HUGE step in my opinion. Time will tell whether it's working or not and what changes still need to be made.

I think many on this forum have a tainted view of WI deer hunting. Areas in which NoFo, dipper, and others are located that have excessive amounts of deer and few hunters willing to harvest does are NOT the norm across the state. In fact the DNR has a harder time trying to figure out what to do with situations like that. In areas of low numbers, which is much of the state, regulation of doe tags has been instituted and the effects of that should be seen over the coming years. However in areas of high numbers, a handful of select areas, there practically is no limit of the doe tags yet the deer population remains high and steady.

If Wisconsin's new system proves to be successful I envision DNR's all around jumping onboard and following their model. Heck WI is still arguably the deer hunting capitol of the US isn't it?