MN bills introduced to allow crossbows during archery season.

[SD51555]

I dug up my LSOHC master plan from my bookmarks. There's info in here that everyone needs to understand. Here's what's coming. (all of these charts are available inside the linked document.

https://www.lsohc.mn.gov/25yr_plan/FINAL_25_Year_Framework.pdf

As of 2010, there were 14 million acres of private wildlife lands left in MN.



By 2034, they aim to reduce that by another 1.97 million acres just with LSOHC money. Who among us is going to give up those acres? Who is going to look down at their kids and grand kids and volunteer them to no longer be able to own their own piece of land?



If you do the math just on the 2010 and 2011 progress at eliminating private lands, they're were way ahead of their annual acres goal to hit 1.97 million. 112,000 acres/yr x 25 years = 2.8 million acres, or a 20% reduction in privately own wildlife habitat.



And this also doesn't account for other injections of money to speed this up, like when Dayton scored an extra $500 million in funding in 2017 for permanent easements. Or his 2015 score of $795 million to acquire another 100,000 acres in easements @ a cost of $8,000/ac.

Dayton signs $500 million deal to protect rural waters

The highly anticipated state-federal deal will provide $350 million from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and $150 million in state funds.

www.startribune.com

Governor Dayton Pursues $795 Million in Funding for Clean Water, Wildlife Habitat - Pope Soil & Water

Plan would partner with landowners to enroll up to 100,000 acres in water quality conservation efforts ST. PAUL, MN – Continuing his work to improve water quality and wildlife habitat, Governor Mark Dayton today submitted a $795 million proposal to the United States Department of Agriculture for...

popeswcd.org

At these rates, they'll own it all before my remains are converted to clover and rye. All I did was look at their documents to see what they thought of us, and what they intend to do with the land. Flip through that document at the top of this post. It's an eye opener.

 

[sandbur]

I always question these plans that want to return habitat to what it was before the white man arrived. I don’t believe the habitat was at all static or in the ‘perfect ‘ state some envision.

There were tribes that came and gone and migrated. Some planted crops, some burned large areas, some changed management when they got the horse.

Then we can look at weather/ climate. The 30’s were dry and hot. We might have another period like that. Fires and death of some trees and bushes occurred. Other plants and trees may have expanded northward. Surely this happened over the hundreds of years before the white man arrived.

I just can’t see how the feds or state can define how the habitat should look like to be in a ‘pure state’ as I suspect many people accept their policies.

 

[Angus 1895]

I heard of a farmer/livestock owner on the Iowa Minnesota border.

He had CRP land, and he grazed some land.

Over a period of time the grazing land tested more fertile.

 

[Howboutthemdawgs]

I always question these plans that want to return habitat to what it was before the white man arrived. I don’t believe the habitat was at all static or in the ‘perfect ‘ state some envision.

There were tribes that came and gone and migrated. Some planted crops, some burned large areas, some changed management when they got the horse.

Then we can look at weather/ climate. The 30’s were dry and hot. We might have another period like that. Fires and death of some trees and bushes occurred. Other plants and trees may have expanded northward. Surely this happened over the hundreds of years before the white man arrived.

I just can’t see how the feds or state can define how the habitat should look like to be in a ‘pure state’ as I suspect many people accept their policies.

Just like national parks such as Yellowstone. They want it to be pre expansion type landscape for flora and fauna. Well guess what, Yellowstone has been hunted by man for hundreds of thousands of years. Sounds like the government is playing selective restoration to me.

 

[Brian662]

Four months after all Minnesota archers could legally deploy crossbows to kill deer, they certainly have.

Fred Bear must be tossing and turning in his grave.

Bear, who died in 1988, was modern bow hunting's architect-in-chief. He began carving his own longbows and arrows in the late 1920s, and in 1933 he started Bear Products Co., forerunner to the modern-day Bear Archery Co.

Bear didn't hunt deer with a bow until he was 29 years old. Other archers in his home state of Michigan also got a late start. Archery hunting for deer wasn't legalized there until 1937, when fewer than 200 bowmen went afield in two counties. Other states soon initiated their own seasons.

Bear lived long enough to see the popularization of compound bows. But he never hunted with one, preferring instead to hunt with 65-pound recurve bows — drawing them back and aiming by instinct, before letting an arrow fly, all of it in one smooth motion.

In his lifetime, Bear killed all manner of big game, relishing the challenge of pursuing deer and elk, as well as dangerous game, including grizzly and polar bears. In the process he developed a keen respect for these animals and for all of nature, while honing a strong conservation ethic.

That America, and Americans, have grown more distant from nature and more addicted to convenience in the 100 years or so since Bear carved his first bow seems generally agreed upon, and Minnesota's regression into the nether world of trigger-activated crossbows is further evidence.

Until this fall, only the elderly and people with disabilities in Minnesota could use these killing machines to pursue deer. That changed when, last spring, cloaked in the fog of backroom dealings and without public hearings, legislators legalized crossbows for use by all bow hunters.

The result was predictable. Crossbows and ease of use have brought new people to bow hunting: 107,270 Minnesota archery licenses were sold through Monday, up from 101,555 for all of last year.

And while the whitetail kill by archery is about the same as last year, of the 21,600 "archery"-felled deer so far this year (the season ends Dec. 31), fully 9,290, or 43%, were taken by crossbows.

Striking as it is, this harvest percentage can only be considered an estimate, because the Department of Natural Resources in its licensing of archery hunters doesn't distinguish between hunters using compound, recurve or other "vertical" bows
— which require skill and practice to hit a target — from crossbows, which for accuracy require little more than a sizable enough bank account to make their purchase.

Wisconsin, by contrast, sells two distinct archery licenses, one for crossbows and one for more traditional bows. A 2013 law change in the Badger State made crossbows legal for all hunters, rather than only the disabled and elderly. A mere four years later, for the first time in Wisconsin history, crossbow users killed more deer than archers using traditional-style bows.

In the years since, the vertical bow vs. crossbow deer harvest gap in Wisconsin has continued to swell. This fall, 20,983 whitetails have fallen to traditional bow hunters, while 32,297 have been taken by crossbows.

Which paints a not-very-pretty picture of where Minnesota is headed.

Crossbows have their place, and their use by elderly and disabled hunters is appropriate. But their widespread deployment — with little practice, some can be discharged accurately at targets 100 yards distant — discourages the development of the very skills that make bow hunting for deer something more than an exercise in venison gathering.

Perhaps no archer in history killed more game than Fred Bear. To do so he usually had to stalk animals to within 20 to 25 yards, or closer, and shoot without the benefit of sights or the power with which modern compound bows can loose arrows, often at 300 feet per second or more.

Yet Bear knew that killing is the easiest and least satisfying part of hunting — hunting as he knew it, anyway.

"I hunt because I love the entire process," he said, "the preparations, the excitement and sustained suspense of trying to match my woods lore against the finely honed instincts of these creatures. On most days spent in the woods, I come home with an honestly earned feeling that something good has taken place. It makes no difference whether or not I got anything: it has to do with how the day was spent."

The newly minted Minnesota "bow" hunter, crossbow in hand, might ask, "Where's the harm, anyway?" The DNR sells a few more licenses, archery shops cash in on the crossbow craze, and the same number of deer, more or less, end up on butchers' slabs.

But the question never was, and shouldn't be, about the number of hunting licenses sold or the size of the whitetail harvest.

The question instead should be about us; what we've been and what we're becoming. And whether, and how, we learn to value the natural world and our place in it, rather than merely exploit it.

Bow hunting, properly undertaken, can play a role.

"When bow hunting," Bear said, "you look at things more closely. You're more aware. You know the limited range of the bow is only 40 yards or so. You must try to out-wait that approaching deer. Careful not to make the slightest movement or sound, hoping that your scent won't suddenly waft his way. That's when you'll know for sure and appreciate deeply what bow hunting is all about."

Letting everyone use crossbows is wrong move for bow hunting

Until this year, only the elderly and people with disabilities in Minnesota could use powerful crossbows to hunt deer. The change was made by the Legislature without public hearings being held.

m.startribune.com

 

[Brian662]

Doesn't seem to be glaring stats in the opening year of crossbows, although I'm sure the state is happy with an additional 6,000 license sales.

Article from the Star Tribune is mostly an opinion piece, but I got around the paywall so I copy/pasted for anyone interested.

 

[Howboutthemdawgs]

To consider a crossbow archery is playing fast and loose with the term. Its a category in and of itself to me.

 

[Skeeter]

Four months after all Minnesota archers could legally deploy crossbows to kill deer, they certainly have.

Fred Bear must be tossing and turning in his grave.

Bear, who died in 1988, was modern bow hunting's architect-in-chief. He began carving his own longbows and arrows in the late 1920s, and in 1933 he started Bear Products Co., forerunner to the modern-day Bear Archery Co.

Bear didn't hunt deer with a bow until he was 29 years old. Other archers in his home state of Michigan also got a late start. Archery hunting for deer wasn't legalized there until 1937, when fewer than 200 bowmen went afield in two counties. Other states soon initiated their own seasons.

Bear lived long enough to see the popularization of compound bows. But he never hunted with one, preferring instead to hunt with 65-pound recurve bows — drawing them back and aiming by instinct, before letting an arrow fly, all of it in one smooth motion.

In his lifetime, Bear killed all manner of big game, relishing the challenge of pursuing deer and elk, as well as dangerous game, including grizzly and polar bears. In the process he developed a keen respect for these animals and for all of nature, while honing a strong conservation ethic.

That America, and Americans, have grown more distant from nature and more addicted to convenience in the 100 years or so since Bear carved his first bow seems generally agreed upon, and Minnesota's regression into the nether world of trigger-activated crossbows is further evidence.

Until this fall, only the elderly and people with disabilities in Minnesota could use these killing machines to pursue deer. That changed when, last spring, cloaked in the fog of backroom dealings and without public hearings, legislators legalized crossbows for use by all bow hunters.

The result was predictable. Crossbows and ease of use have brought new people to bow hunting: 107,270 Minnesota archery licenses were sold through Monday, up from 101,555 for all of last year.

And while the whitetail kill by archery is about the same as last year, of the 21,600 "archery"-felled deer so far this year (the season ends Dec. 31), fully 9,290, or 43%, were taken by crossbows.

Striking as it is, this harvest percentage can only be considered an estimate, because the Department of Natural Resources in its licensing of archery hunters doesn't distinguish between hunters using compound, recurve or other "vertical" bows
— which require skill and practice to hit a target — from crossbows, which for accuracy require little more than a sizable enough bank account to make their purchase.

Wisconsin, by contrast, sells two distinct archery licenses, one for crossbows and one for more traditional bows. A 2013 law change in the Badger State made crossbows legal for all hunters, rather than only the disabled and elderly. A mere four years later, for the first time in Wisconsin history, crossbow users killed more deer than archers using traditional-style bows.

In the years since, the vertical bow vs. crossbow deer harvest gap in Wisconsin has continued to swell. This fall, 20,983 whitetails have fallen to traditional bow hunters, while 32,297 have been taken by crossbows.

Which paints a not-very-pretty picture of where Minnesota is headed.

Crossbows have their place, and their use by elderly and disabled hunters is appropriate. But their widespread deployment — with little practice, some can be discharged accurately at targets 100 yards distant — discourages the development of the very skills that make bow hunting for deer something more than an exercise in venison gathering.

Perhaps no archer in history killed more game than Fred Bear. To do so he usually had to stalk animals to within 20 to 25 yards, or closer, and shoot without the benefit of sights or the power with which modern compound bows can loose arrows, often at 300 feet per second or more.

Yet Bear knew that killing is the easiest and least satisfying part of hunting — hunting as he knew it, anyway.

"I hunt because I love the entire process," he said, "the preparations, the excitement and sustained suspense of trying to match my woods lore against the finely honed instincts of these creatures. On most days spent in the woods, I come home with an honestly earned feeling that something good has taken place. It makes no difference whether or not I got anything: it has to do with how the day was spent."

The newly minted Minnesota "bow" hunter, crossbow in hand, might ask, "Where's the harm, anyway?" The DNR sells a few more licenses, archery shops cash in on the crossbow craze, and the same number of deer, more or less, end up on butchers' slabs.

But the question never was, and shouldn't be, about the number of hunting licenses sold or the size of the whitetail harvest.

The question instead should be about us; what we've been and what we're becoming. And whether, and how, we learn to value the natural world and our place in it, rather than merely exploit it.

Bow hunting, properly undertaken, can play a role.

"When bow hunting," Bear said, "you look at things more closely. You're more aware. You know the limited range of the bow is only 40 yards or so. You must try to out-wait that approaching deer. Careful not to make the slightest movement or sound, hoping that your scent won't suddenly waft his way. That's when you'll know for sure and appreciate deeply what bow hunting is all about."

Letting everyone use crossbows is wrong move for bow hunting

Until this year, only the elderly and people with disabilities in Minnesota could use powerful crossbows to hunt deer. The change was made by the Legislature without public hearings being held.

m.startribune.com

First world problems...

 

[Wind Gypsy]

First world problems...

Yeah, I dont like the idea of x-bows in archery season for all because of potential to decrease quality of existing archery and firearm seasons. Don't much care about what fred bear would have thought or what is/isn't "archery" or any purist views on what bow hunting should or shouldn't be.

 

[Brian662]

Yeah, I dont like the idea of x-bows in archery season for all because of potential to decrease quality of existing archery and firearm seasons. Don't much care about what fred bear would have thought or what is/isn't "archery" or any purist views on what bow hunting should or shouldn't be.

Pretty much how I feel about it too. The bar is pretty low for what passes as outdoors journalism nowadays.

 

[S.T.Fanatic]

It doesn't bother me a bit. At 42 I have no intention of switching to a crossbow. Ask me again at 62 it will probably be a different story. The state needs deer killed. (more in some areas, less in others) With poor hunter recruitment, the deer population in a lot of areas will get out of hand in the next 20 years. Would you rather see the state go back to long bows and flint locks? If so then be ready to accept state contracted killers to come in and gun down deer by the thousands with rifles over bait piles.

We have a major problem in society today with people getting all up in what everyone else is doing and not enough of doing what you personally feel is right. Right, wrong, or otherwise. If you don't want to use a crossbow don't use one. As the younger generation of today say "You do You" Fly fisherman are constantly complaining about bait fisherman and pushing heavily for catch and release regulations. What that has done is made a few trout streams with 12,000 dink trout per mile. (100% natural reproduction) It may be fun for some people but I have no interest whatsoever with catching 10" trout one after another all day long. So I don't fish those streams.

I am all in for a statewide rifle season in Minnesota. They are much more accurate than shotguns. I am sick and tired of finding deadheads every year. Obviously not all of them were wounded by hunters but there is more deer killed by shotguns than what the harvest data shows. There is a hard to access trout stream south of me about 45 min. That stream flows through a big chunk of state land. Every year we fish there in late winter/early spring we find a boat load of dead heads. ( shotgun only area ) If hunters were using rifles in this area a lot more of those deer would have been recovered and enjoyed.

If you want good trophy hunting (and I do) low to moderate deer numbers are the way to do it. ( IMO and situation ) Everyone's situation varies a bit but you would have a hard time convincing me otherwise.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

It doesn't bother me a bit. At 42 I have no intention of switching to a crossbow. Ask me again at 62 it will probably be a different story. The state needs deer killed. (more in some areas, less in others) With poor hunter recruitment, the deer population in a lot of areas will get out of hand in the next 20 years. Would you rather see the state go back to long bows and flint locks? If so then be ready to accept state contracted killers to come in and gun down deer by the thousands with rifles over bait piles.

IMO, hunter recruitment has very little to do with how many deer get killed with our current season structure. Access to land and regulations are the levers of control. In areas where there are high populations, rut firearm season with bonus doe tags makes it pretty easy to control populations. Hunters/landowners limiting what they shoot or who they allow to hunt are the reason some of these areas still have high deer populations IMO. The main reg change i could see to overcome that is earn-a-buck regs. Barb Keller (DNR big game supervisor) in a recent outdoor news interview alluded to earn-a-buck as being a possible way to get more deer killed if people in areas with doe seasons and available bonus doe tags dont kill enough deer.

I'd be all for earn-a-buck regs over continually making it easier and easier to kill a deer in places with over-population issues.

Poking the bear on this one... thoughts on any of these dead heads being EHD or CWD deaths?

 

[S.T.Fanatic]

IMO, hunter recruitment has very little to do with how many deer get killed with our current season structure. Access to land and regulations are the levers of control. In areas where there are high populations, rut firearm season with bonus doe tags makes it pretty easy to control populations. Hunters/landowners limiting what they shoot or who they allow to hunt are the reason some of these areas still have high deer populations IMO. The main reg change i could see to overcome that is earn-a-buck regs. Barb Keller (DNR big game supervisor) in a recent outdoor news interview alluded to earn-a-buck as being a possible way to get more deer killed if people in areas with doe seasons and available bonus doe tags dont kill enough deer.

I'd be all for earn-a-buck regs over continually making it easier and easier to kill a deer in places with over-population issues.

Poking the bear on this one... thoughts on any of these dead heads being EHD or CWD deaths?

The chances of CWD or EHD are extremely low. Maybe its just the area I hunt then. There is tons of state land down here all in some of the best whitetail habitat in the country and big ag to boot. Many big bucks are shot on state land every year and many of the farmers that have deprodation tags are in close proximity to state land. There is no shortage of public land to hunt.

What there is is a shortage of people willing to hunt it. Don't get me wrong, It's plenty crowded down here during the gun season but there is a LOT of state land. Available private land to lease is as rare as hens teeth. If you are a local and you knock on enough doors you would not have a problem getting access to private land. Most people are to "scared" to knock on someone's door and ask a question. Not many farmers ( If any ) around here that think there isn't enough deer.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

I dug up my LSOHC master plan from my bookmarks. There's info in here that everyone needs to understand. Here's what's coming. (all of these charts are available inside the linked document.

https://www.lsohc.mn.gov/25yr_plan/FINAL_25_Year_Framework.pdf

As of 2010, there were 14 million acres of private wildlife lands left in MN.

View attachment 57871

By 2034, they aim to reduce that by another 1.97 million acres just with LSOHC money. Who among us is going to give up those acres? Who is going to look down at their kids and grand kids and volunteer them to no longer be able to own their own piece of land?

View attachment 57872

If you do the math just on the 2010 and 2011 progress at eliminating private lands, they're were way ahead of their annual acres goal to hit 1.97 million. 112,000 acres/yr x 25 years = 2.8 million acres, or a 20% reduction in privately own wildlife habitat.

View attachment 57874

And this also doesn't account for other injections of money to speed this up, like when Dayton scored an extra $500 million in funding in 2017 for permanent easements. Or his 2015 score of $795 million to acquire another 100,000 acres in easements @ a cost of $8,000/ac.

Dayton signs $500 million deal to protect rural waters

The highly anticipated state-federal deal will provide $350 million from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and $150 million in state funds.

www.startribune.com

Governor Dayton Pursues $795 Million in Funding for Clean Water, Wildlife Habitat - Pope Soil & Water

Plan would partner with landowners to enroll up to 100,000 acres in water quality conservation efforts ST. PAUL, MN – Continuing his work to improve water quality and wildlife habitat, Governor Mark Dayton today submitted a $795 million proposal to the United States Department of Agriculture for...

popeswcd.org

At these rates, they'll own it all before my remains are converted to clover and rye. All I did was look at their documents to see what they thought of us, and what they intend to do with the land. Flip through that document at the top of this post. It's an eye opener.

Don't mistake this as a wholesale endorsement of the entirety of the conservation easement program but to call it "eliminating private lands" is a misdirection on what the conservation easements actually are.

 

[S.T.Fanatic]

Don't mistake this as a wholesale endorsement of the entirety of the conservation easement program but to call it "eliminating private lands" is a misdirection on what the conservation easements actually are.

You are correct. He should have said "Eliminating private landowners rights to their property" Then again, Just stop paying your property tax and see what happens.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

The chances of CWD or EHD are extremely low. Maybe its just the area I hunt then. There is tons of state land down here all in some of the best whitetail habitat in the country and big ag to boot. Many big bucks are shot on state land every year and many of the farmers that have deprodation tags are in close proximity to state land. There is no shortage of public land to hunt.

What there is is a shortage of people willing to hunt it. Don't get me wrong, It's plenty crowded down here during the gun season but there is a LOT of state land. Available private land to lease is as rare as hens teeth. If you are a local and you knock on enough doors you would not have a problem getting access to private land. Most people are to "scared" to knock on someone's door and ask a question. Not many farmers ( If any ) around here that think there isn't enough deer.

So in your opinion, if there were sufficient willing hunters, enough deer on public land could get killed to keep the area populations in check without any change to harvest on private land?

 

[Brian662]

I can only speak for my properties and my properties alone - I can not buy enough tags to legally harvest as many does as I'd like to keep the population where I want it.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

You are correct. He should have said "Eliminating private landowners rights to their property" Then again, Just stop paying your property tax and see what happens.

About the same as if there was sudden rise in landowners selling their mineral rights and one said the trend is "Eliminating private landowners rights to their property". They'd still own certain rights and it wouldn't be "volunteering their kids or grandkids to not being able to own land".

 

[Wind Gypsy]

I can only speak for my properties and my properties alone - I can not buy enough tags to legally harvest as many does as I'd like to keep the population where I want it.

How many more tags would you want and actually use? How many other hunters have access to these properties?

 

[S.T.Fanatic]

So in your opinion, if there were sufficient willing hunters, enough deer on public land could get killed to keep the area populations in check without any change to harvest on private land?

I would say, " In my area yes but..." If the DNR would quit conducting deer surveys during the winter when deer are coming from miles away to feed in farmers silage bags. The deer are only over populated in a couple of places in my area and that is largely due to my previous sentence and its only certain time of the year. Part of it has to do with the small family farmers retiring. There is state land around here that at one time was a winter deer mecca. 25% of the corn or beans that was planted on it had to be left standing for the wildlife. Those fields were run by smaller acreage farmers. Most of the farmers around now are bigger operations with big debt and they don't have the time or the smaller equipment to mess with smaller fields especially when they have to leave 25% in the field. People around here that hunt eat a lot of venison. Private and public hunters alike.