Anti-APR Chatter In MN Outdoor News

[bwoods11]

The public land we have in our area is managed for ducks and pheasants. They cut every tree down (supposedly to make sure predators do not hang out and disturb the nests). Rarely have a food plot.

I asked the MDHA at a meeting to look into funding public land for deer hunting and in our area and got a funny look.
Actually PF has bought three parcels in our county that are good deer hunting parcels, and they have not cut the trees down. Good numbers of deer and pheasants on all three.

 

[biglakeba$$]

Funny how that works when pheasants can coexist in habitat that holds deer.

Best pheasant hunting I ever had was in Montana along the Tongue River bottoms that were LOADED with deer AND pheasants. Huge cottonwood trees lining the river banks and lowlands.

 

[bwoods11]

Funny how that works when pheasants can coexist in habitat that holds deer.

Best pheasant hunting I ever had was in Montana along the Tongue River bottoms that were LOADED with deer AND pheasants. Huge cottonwood trees lining the river banks and lowlands.

Exactly!!

I have thousands of trees planted on my farm near Villard. Spruce/Cedar/Plum/chokecherry, even some oak---planted in rows like shelterbelts. All the pheasants in the section are on my farm in October-March. I get what the DNR and wildlife guys are saying, but it does not hurt to have variety. Look at South Dakota, the pheasants and deer love the shelterbelts.

 

[biglakeba$$]

I do find it funny in a way that we manage specifically for an invasive species(pheasants)......

 

[wiscwhip]

I do find it funny in a way that we manage specifically for an invasive species(pheasants)......

I wouldn't call them invasive so much as just non-native. To be considered invasive they have to outcompete native species in the habitat without any manipulation by man, which we all know they do not do very well at without a bunch of help. Turkeys are another story, they might be considered a native, invasive species in some areas. They are very prolific breeders and if you don't have enough predators/high hunting bag limits around to curb that, their populations can go off the charts in a short period of time in localized areas.

 

[sandbur]

When I saw LSOHC had their sights on land in Cass county, my hinder puckered up a bit. But it sounds like it's a conversion from county to state control on the other side of the county from us. It's nice to have some public land out our back door, but we certainly don't need any more. Ownership drives stewardship, and you can't get that kind of commitment on public land.

This is not a conversion from county to state control. These are commercial timber lands that had been open to public hunting and berry picking for generations. The plan is to keep these accessible to the public and out of state control. Hope it works out and I like the idea of public lands for grouse and deer hunting. Part of the purpose has also been to maintain access to public lands behind these parcels.
I have hunted and picked many blue berries on these lands-about 40-50 years ago.

 

[sandbur]

MN has tons of poorly managed public hunting. What is great about another ten thousand acres of it?

MDHA should be focused on proper management of what we already have

This effort is to maintain some of the public hunting that we all ready have. Not an additional ten thousand acres, but maintaining some of what exists. We lost 7000 acres in that area all ready. I heard one suggestion that mentioned up to 35000 acres of spud land.

 

[Ben.MN/WI]

Everyone that I know that has put a large deer on the wall did it during the boom days in the early 2000's. I remember when Ripley was good, my buddy took two wall mounters out of there and made the front page of the ODN holding each one up. Could also be a good picture to illustrate the demise of it as well.

I live in zone 3 and I never really hear anything negative about the APR's - most people I know really like the rules now. I know more people who have shot their personal best bucks in the past 5 years than prior to APR's, but that's obviously not a scientific survey by any stretch. I own a small 40 acre parcel and hunt a few other properties that are owned by friends or neighbors. We consistently kill bucks 4.5 years old and up on properties that are hunted hard because there are more bucks in the population than before. I have nothing scientific to back that up with, but the % of bucks is better than it was in the past even if there are fewer total deer. It used to be tough to see a 2.5 year old buck, but now they're relatively common since most people pass up the little ones. I also like the fact that people need to identify their target clearly before lobbing slugs at a patch of brown.

The low deer population goals set by the DNR are the cause of the lower deer numbers, not APR's. They are two separate issues. The APR's may help the DNR drop the deer numbers more efficiently when people pass up little bucks and bag a doe instead, but I don't believe for a second that if we got rid of the APR's in SE MN that the DNR would allow the deer numbers to increase significantly.

 

[biglakeba$$]

I don't believe for a second that if we got rid of the APR's in SE MN that the DNR would allow the deer numbers to increase significantly.

Without question!!!
Taking APR out will do one thing..... lower the age structure of harvested bucks and thats about it. Management of densities wont change.

 

[bat man]

This effort is to maintain some of the public hunting that we all ready have. Not an additional ten thousand acres, but maintaining some of what exists. We lost 7000 acres in that area all ready. I heard one suggestion that mentioned up to 35000 acres of spud land.

Drop in the bucket.

They could buy easements for the public behind it for pennies would be my guess. 10,000 areas is squat in the grand scheme. Bumo the herd 1% and you can throw all the deer on those 10,000 away and they would not be missed.

Buying 10,000 acres with taxpayer funds and managing for 5 or 10 dpsm is a joke in my eyes.

 

[SD51555]

Yeah, but we'll probably make a few hundred bucks an acre off that land every 20 years in timber sales.

 

[sandbur]

Drop in the bucket.

They could buy easements for the public behind it for pennies would be my guess. 10,000 areas is squat in the grand scheme. Bumo the herd 1% and you can throw all the deer on those 10,000 away and they would not be missed.

Buying 10,000 acres with taxpayer funds and managing for 5 or 10 dpsm is a joke in my eyes.

Brooks-parcel by parcel we need to try and keep our hunting heritage. This is one step, just like the agreement that kept some of the lands south of Grand Rapids open to hunting.

The funds are taxpayer funds, but are from sales tax money that will be spent somewhere. We might spend it on buffer strips on private land to try and keep a bit of water cleaner, or spend it on keeping these lands open to the public and maybe keep the Crow Wing River a bit cleaner as less acres in the watershed will be in cropland.

I still wonder if it will truly cash flow or not.

 

[SD51555]

This is not a conversion from county to state control. These are commercial timber lands that had been open to public hunting and berry picking for generations. The plan is to keep these accessible to the public and out of state control. Hope it works out and I like the idea of public lands for grouse and deer hunting. Part of the purpose has also been to maintain access to public lands behind these parcels.
I have hunted and picked many blue berries on these lands-about 40-50 years ago.

You're correct. I read it wrong.

 

[SD51555]

I just can't get over the money spent on acquisition vs improvement. It seems the state just acquires deeds and stuffs them in a drawer and walks away after they fling the door open and allow the game species to be wiped out. Today over half the forested lands of MN are owned by either the federal or state government. Some time down the road I imagine they'll have it all, and our descendents will talk of their ancestors back when they owned their own land and how cool that must have been. Somewhere in between, those of us that were able to scratch enough together to buy something will be made out to be the rich devils by some opportunistic politician. But that's probably years away before that would ever happen, where such a figure would try to set the people at war with each other.

 

[biglakeba$$]

Think about how much the state will make selling off the land in 50 to 100 years.....

It will all be sold to clear off for more potatoe fields.

 

[sandbur]

I think part of the idea is to keep the land out of state hands, but still open to the public.


I don't particularly like how I see federal lands being managed. Somewhat true for state lands also, but slightly better. The feds get to involved in old growth for our deer/grouse species to do well.

 

[bat man]

The deer camps of zone 1 are not closing because the public lands are gone. Hunters quit because the deer are gone. As a deer based org time and money are better spent fixing the problem. This 10,000 is a band aid on a pimple.

 

[wiscwhip]

The deer camps of zone 1 are not closing because the public lands are gone. Hunters quit because the deer are gone. As a deer based org time and money are better spent fixing the problem. This 10,000 is a band aid on a pimple.

I would say it is more like a Band-Aid on a slashed throat!

 

[MN Slick]

I live in zone 3 and I never really hear anything negative about the APR's - most people I know really like the rules now. I know more people who have shot their personal best bucks in the past 5 years than prior to APR's, but that's obviously not a scientific survey by any stretch. I own a small 40 acre parcel and hunt a few other properties that are owned by friends or neighbors. We consistently kill bucks 4.5 years old and up on properties that are hunted hard because there are more bucks in the population than before. I have nothing scientific to back that up with, but the % of bucks is better than it was in the past even if there are fewer total deer. It used to be tough to see a 2.5 year old buck, but now they're relatively common since most people pass up the little ones. I also like the fact that people need to identify their target clearly before lobbing slugs at a patch of brown.

The low deer population goals set by the DNR are the cause of the lower deer numbers, not APR's. They are two separate issues. The APR's may help the DNR drop the deer numbers more efficiently when people pass up little bucks and bag a doe instead, but I don't believe for a second that if we got rid of the APR's in SE MN that the DNR would allow the deer numbers to increase significantly.

This has been my experience with APR's in Missouri as well and no evidence of high grading either. I would not be in favor them in low population areas though.

 

[bwoods11]

As a proponent of APR, I find myself just giving up on any push for it. This state has so many hunters that do not want to have good hunting or do not know what good hunting is. No matter the conditions even if we had plenty of deer, APR would send some guys through the roof. The next generation of young guys now, they are more into archery and that may lead to changes in 10-20 years.

For now, I'll hunt other states and just live with the crappy to semi-average hunting we have here in MN now.