Hunter Managed Herds-Private versus Public Lands

[sandbur]

I just wanted to make a point that it can work in both places.

Many of us are used to public lands that are over run with hunters, but not all areas are that way.

Private land example. My home are had a spring 2014 flyover of 5.7 dpsm. My family chose to not shoot a doe this year,even though all 4 of us had permits. I estimated my 170 acre farm had one breeding doe on the farm. I saw one adult doe during season and passed on it. My wife saw one adult doe (probably the same one) and passed on it. This spring we have two and maybe 3 does with fawns. Passing one deer doubled our breeding herd.

 

[sandbur]

Public land example. I have hunted northern Minnesota lands where you hunt 3-4 days to see a deer with all day sits. Same thing as my home in farm country. Many areas have deer numbers in the 5-8 dpsm range. After opening weekend, hunting pressure is very low.
A single hunter with a doe permit can make a decision to double the breeding potential of the herd by passing one doe.

We just need to get one hunter to think about it to make a difference.
Play with the numbers.

We can make a difference even on public lands.

 

[sandbur]

I used to be an avid musky fisherman. Catch and release made a big difference in our populations, even though size limits were only 30 inches in those days.

No reason it can't work on public lands with lower deer numbers.

 

[wiscwhip]

Of course it can work...the issue is that it will be much more difficult. Most guys who spend more than a day or two a year chasing muskies have a pretty similar mindset...most guys deer hunting public land do too...fill your tags. I knew quite a few guys in WI who wouldn't shoot a doe on their place, but they had zero issues hitting the public land down the road to fill doe tags. Making even a marginal improvement on public land is an uphill battle I'm afraid. About the only way I see it happening is if our DNR does something similar to the WI DNR...separate public and private land antlerless tags, with much fewer available on public.

I have witnessed the same thing for years in WI as well stu and have posted my displeasure about many times on multiple forums. I call those guys out on it every chance I get. I have even gotten into a few fights over it in my younger days. Not much pi$$e$ me off more than that. Especially when they have ample deer and acreage that they could easily take one or two does without affecting a thing. Shoot your own d*mn deer off your own farm and leave the public land deer for the guys who must hunt public land. Sorry if that doesn't sit well with some of you, but it is my opinion. I have been playing this game for 35 years and there isn't a he!!ava lot anyone can say to change my mind at this point. I love the fact that those greedy ba$tard$ have to sit online or be in line at their local license vendor at 10am on the first sale day and pray they get even one tag now for public land, even if that means I have to do the same thing and see the same results of not getting a tag. I did address the tag allocation process with some members of the DNR. I do think in areas where tags are minimal(only 50 Public Land tags in my area last year, only 100 for this season), that they should go back to a lottery system of having to apply for a tag and then give them out in a drawing like they used to do back in the days of Hunters Choice permits and that is what I suggested to the DNR personnel. They did agree that the current process wasn't really fair to the guy who is working when they go on sale at 10am on a Monday morning and that is what I suggested may have to be considered in the future after we sort things out for a year or two.

 

[wiscwhip]

I agree whip...nothing like a selfish ba$tard to ruin things.

Yeah...seems like you guys live that up there every season. :(:mad:I see no reason for anyone to buy 4 tags and shoot 4(or more) deer unless you are in a situation like dipper, NoFo, or Mo on his place in Missouri.

 

[sandbur]

I have seen a different situation in northern Mn. Guys have a camp on 10-40 acres and spend most of their time hunting on public land. They hunt the same public land year after year and feel some ownership. Some have traditional stands that are used year after year by the same hunter.

Different deer camps traditionally hunt their own specific area of public land.

 

[Jameson]

I am not too sure what to think about HMH and public lands. I hunt almost exclusively public these last few years, even when I could hunt some cruddy private lands.

Private land areas that are a bunch of 10-40 acre parcels have more hunters than some public lands, maybe even most of the public land in Minnesota. Trying to reach the majority of hunters might actually be easier on public lands. Heck, distributing a bunch of flyers to a campground in a State Forest might be the easiest way to get the word out to most of the hunters of a large area. And the hot bite scenario can happen on private lands just as it can on public (look at BigLakeBa$$'s neighboring property as an example.)

In my opinion to exclude the public land hunter in HMH would be a mistake. To concentrate solely on them would be a bigger mistake. The message can be delivered to all hunters. Plenty of hunters hunt private lands that they don't own, too. We all can look around at the browse and determine if an area is heavily browsed or not, no matter if the land is public or private. We all can choose to pull that trigger or not. Everyone has the problem of passing on a deer and having the next hunter over maybe shooting it. We all can't create deer habitat, that is a private land thing, but really most of our State land habitat is fairly well managed for deer, it could support a lot more. One benefit of our DNR being required to make money from the land and logging it.

Getting the word out to most hunters that the DNR is not managing the deer for the hunters, but rather using the hunters as a tool to accomplish the social carrying capacity is a great start. Stop letting the competition manage us, you wouldn't let your business competitor manage your business would you? Worse yet, we are working directly for them and not even working for ourselves. "Hunter Managed Herds..........where the hunter comes first" vs "DNR managed herds.....where hunters are used as a tool to make everyone else happy."

Some hunters will call B.S. and say that all the buck only, doe lottery, and hunter choice areas show that the DNR has the hunter's concerns at heart. It is a tough argument to be quickly won. Those regulations are often still to liberal in my opinion, but sure do make it look like the DNR is managing the herd with the hunter in mind.

Perhaps when the DNR releases their hunting regs the HMH, MDHA, MDDI, or somebody needs to release a similar set of regs. Many hunters, particularly public land hunters, just say, "well the DNR is issuing 5 doe tags, must be too many deer." If that same hunter had a set of hunting regs issued by the the MDHA that only allowed 1 doe, maybe the hunter would then follow that lead instead. Or at least get a conversation started and get them thinking.

 

[sandbur]

Public lands further from large metro areas might see the most benefit as compared to public lands with more pressure.

We just need to get hunters to think about the local situation before season. Then think again when they see a deer.

 

[MoLandOwner]

No way will it work at any of the public land in my area. We have battalions of viet cong in orange shooting everything in site at those WMA's. These are the same knuckleheads that keep getting caught with 500 sunfish over their limit.

 

[bowhunternw]

Yes that is the problem with public land, it is just overused. With habitat disappearing, increasing population and less people being able to afford land the problem will only get worse. I would like to hear some ideas on how to combat that, maybe there will have to be a public land permit one day to limit the amount of people each year. Because everyone knows that with an increase in pressure the quality of the hunt goes way down.

 

[sandbur]

No way will it work at any of the public land in my area. We have battalions of viet cong in orange shooting everything in site at those WMA's. These are the same knuckleheads that keep getting caught with 500 sunfish over their limit.

That is the main reason I suggested remote public lands.

We still have to try.

 

[bat man]

As long as "we" includes a bunch of public land hunters, ...I don't know how many of them got involved, maybe a lot...maybe none.

There were some passionate public land hunters from Carlos Avery and Sherburne. Even one stakeholder team member who hunted Sherburne exclusively. But regulation is the goal there.

How would you like to pass a doe at your home place to grow the herd and watch her die 100 yards away from a trespasser. Likely the same feeling as trying to self regulate public lands. Its a lot tougher short term sell than the private parcels, but the message is the same.

 

[wiscwhip]

I passed many small bucks and does on our property only to have them walk 100yards on to the public land on our north border and then here a gunshot, not much different any way you look at it. At that point, me personally letting those deer walk didn't help my private land or the public land that I let it walk on to. You will have a much better chance of getting the private landowners who border public land to buy into the whole Hunter Managed Herd idea if they think at least a few public land hunters may have gotten the message as well. If you don't, you will get the same old message from the private owners. "Why should I let that deer walk when it will just be shot at the fenceline anyway?" With the amount of public holdings in much of MN, this mindset HAS to affect many landowners and knowing that the message is going out to ALL hunters, public land guys included, may get some of the private owners that are "on the fence" to commit more readily.

 

[wiscwhip]

I would assume that you may have had the same experience with your parents place backing up to public?

 

[wiscwhip]

That area that butted up to their place took a pretty good hike in from the east anyway, not like our place where they could drive right up to the property line if they knew which logging trail to take. That area has never really been that bad at all with the Little Yellow bottoms to the east and especially now with the management that is going on to the west and north. Always a good chance a nice buck will come wandering through that property during the rut from just about anywhere. If you have any resident does, those bucks might even hang around a bit.

 

[Bowsnbucks]

Man - o - man, a lot of what you guys are saying has taken place in Pa. too. Guys here go to public lands to " fill their doe tags ". Some areas that held many deer ( mainly because you had to walk 2 miles to get in there - locked gates to vehicles ) got cleaned out when doe tag numbers were multiplied to crazy numbers. PGC got drunk on increased revenue from doe tag sales ...... deer numbers plummeted ...... now, doe tag sales lag. It used to be you had to have your doe tag application in the mail 2 or 3 days ahead of the " opening day " of tag sales or you didn't get one. Now - in 95% of WMU'S - tags go unsold for weeks ....... and sometimes months.

This whole scenario is PROOF that you can't shoot every living thing and expect to have deer sprouting from under rocks.

This very common situation is tough to solve when you have a good number of guys with the mindset : " I paid for my tag and I'm shooting a doe if I see one. I'm getting my money's worth !! " ( I realize some areas are truly loaded with deer. But many formerly well-populated areas are just about empty now ) For those emptier areas, we're left with 2 choices : depend on the state agencies to sell less tags / do the right thing - or - do it ourselves if we want more deer.

 

[wiscwhip]

As much as I hate the fact that this whole deer management thing has turned into a politically controlled mess(and it has pretty much everywhere, and if it hasn't where you are, it will soon enough), I am soooooo glad the hunters of Wisconsin b!tch*d and complained enough to their legislators that it more or less forced Gov Walker into action. The last WI "review" of deer policy(better know as the Deer Trustee Report/Kroll Report/Dr. Deer Report) was initiated by Scooter Walker to address the issue. Look at it any way you want, Scooter saw 600,000 angry voters and thought if he could be their hero, he would be set for future reelections. An incidental outcome of this was that the hunters of WI in turn used Gov Scooter as their puppet to wrest back some of the decision making and goal setting power from our DNR in the form of the CDAC Committees brought about by the findings in the report. It forced the use of the Private/Public land antlerless tags to be separated from one total number of tags, which allows the Public land quotas to be much lower to rebound the herd on public lands. The Committees getting to evaluate the data metrics and making the quota recommendations to the DNR and Natural Resources Board(who ultimately decides which quota numbers get used, and they used the CDAC recommendations, not the DNR's recommendations), was a huge step in starting to help get our numbers back on track in the problem areas of the state. IF things pan out with this "grand experiment" and the CDAC Committees don't start making dumb decisions like voting a herd "Increase" in an area with 40+ DPSM, we should be on our way to some marked improvements in WI over the next couple seasons. Time will tell and who knows WI might again be at the forefront of deer management policy like they have always been in the past. Our system may very well become the "gold standard" for deer management that is the envy of other states, much like it was back in the early days of deer/wildlife management and was up until the recent past. If one is in need of change, it is always good to have an outline to follow.

 

[sandbur]

When I started this thread, I was thinking of areas in northern Mn. where doe tags are via lottery and hard to come by. I have hunted those areas and a hunter who gets a doe tag and then decides to pass on a doe could make a difference. I am not referring to areas where everyone has one or multiple doe tags.

On a specific piece of public land that has a strong link to a hunter or party , or on private land passing the doe could work. I have been thinking of another angle on this. Think of future generations that will hunt the property in the next few years. Even make it more personal and think of kids or Grand kids that could be hunting the following fall.

I have never hunted the specific area that Chris or Buck hunt in Mn. area 172, but it might be the type of area where passing a doe after opening weekend would give her a good chance of survival.

 

[wiscwhip]

When I started this thread, I was thinking of areas in northern Mn. where doe tags are via lottery and hard to come by. I have hunted those areas and a hunter who gets a doe tag and then decides to pass on a doe could make a difference. I am not referring to areas where everyone has one or multiple doe tags.

On a specific piece of public land that has a strong link to a hunter or party , or on private land passing the doe could work. I have been thinking of another angle on this. Think of future generations that will hunt the property in the next few years. Even make it more personal and think of kids or Grand kids that could be hunting the following fall.

I have never hunted the specific area that Chris or Buck hunt in Mn. area 172, but it might be the type of area where passing a doe after opening weekend would give her a good chance of survival.

Not really sure where you are going with this bur? If you are expecting public land hunters that go out of their way to apply for a lottery drawing tag to receive one, pay for it, and then not use it, that will likely never, ever happen. There is a reason they bothered to go out of there way and take the time to apply in the first place and to spend the money to purchase that tag, because they have EVERY intention of using it, you would be better off encouraging them not to apply for a tag at all. You are pushing a product that will be almost impossible sell with that scenario, and in that case, you will have to rely on the state to limit the number of available tags even further to improve your numbers. You will not convince the public land guys who actually went out of their way to apply for the lottery tags to not use them, IMO. Not with any amount or type of "education". I don't even think you will have much luck trying to "guilt" them into passing on does either. Your "caring for the future hunters" sounds great to all of us, but remember you are dealing with guys who will just as likely shoot Jr.'s deer for him as opposed to letting the youngster shoot it themselves. Greed.

 

[sandbur]

Not really sure where you are going with this bur? If you are expecting public land hunters that go out of their way to apply for a lottery drawing tag to receive one, pay for it, and then not use it, that will likely never, ever happen. There is a reason they bothered to go out of there way and take the time to apply in the first place and to spend the money to purchase that tag, because they have EVERY intention of using it, you would be better off encouraging them not to apply for a tag at all. You are pushing a product that will be almost impossible sell with that scenario, and in that case, you will have to rely on the state to limit the number of available tags even further to improve your numbers. You will not convince the public land guys who actually went out of their way to apply for the lottery tags to not use them, IMO. Not with any amount or type of "education". I don't even think you will have much luck trying to "guilt" them into passing on does either. Your "caring for the future hunters" sounds great to all of us, but remember you are dealing with guys who will just as likely shoot Jr.'s deer for him as opposed to letting the youngster shoot it themselves. Greed.

Whip-there are lots of guys that view the youth tag as an extra doe tag for the party. Not right at all.
Is there an extra fee to apply for a doe tag in the lottery area? I did not think there was one or it did not cost much anyway. for those not familiar with Mn. regulations, if you shoot a doe with lottery doe tag, you do not have another tag to use on a buck. Except for party hunting of course.

Whip- if they apply for a tag, get it , and do not use it, there is one less tag for another hunter to use. The advantage might be similar to a doe tag burning party. doe tags are limited in the lottery areas.