Minnesota Hunters (which would you choose)?

[Steve Bartylla]

Supposedly, the Jordon Buck was only 3.5. So, I guess that one would count, but I can't prove either. What I was told by an arrogant as he11 owner of a second rate call company was that a tooth was sent in to be aged. Whether that really happened or not, I can't say....I just know he was super belligerent and swore that's how he knows it was 3.5

 

[Ben.MN/WI]

I can't speak for Bill. I know he sends in teeth, but whether he has ever done so on one that fits that description, I can't say either way.

personally, I never have sent teeth in. For 12-15 years, I've inspected the teeth on every buck I or anyone hunting with me has killed, as well as a good share of the neighbor's. I've had a couple biologists help teach me over the years. Also, one of my buddies manages a large high fence (all natural genetics, with no artificial feeding or mineral program) and pulls the jaws from every buck kill. He literally has trail cam records from every buck on the place from 1.5 on. it's his job to know the age of each buck. Every year we get together, talk smart while acting stupid and I age all the jaws. I'm NOT perfect at it, but 1.5s, 2.5s and 3.5+s are really easy.

What I've noticed is that there is the strong tendency for bucks in the northern states to tend to be under aged and bucks living just 1 or more states south to be over aged by hunters.

I don't have any that I have as a buck fawn that had a clearly identifiable marking (yearling buck dispersal makes doing that tough), but I can dig up at least one 1.5 that did (he's on a external drive, and I'll try to remember to dig him out some time....remind me if I forget). He was solid upper 130s as a 2.5 and 160 if he was an inch at 3.5. I can show you way more that I've tracked from 1.5 that I 100% believe was the same buck that went 150+ at 3.5. Now, one can play devils advocate on those and say I made a mistake tracking them, and it's possible I did, but I have enough of those that I'm confident a good number of those are correct. Toss in the ones aged by the jaw and the one with clearly IDable features and I feel very confident that I can show you 3.5s that go 150-mid 160s and 2.5s in the 130-140 range.

That said, we're talking IL & IA on those bucks, NOT WI, MN or MI. I can't think of a 3.5 I've ever had in any of those states that broke mid 140s. The better ones in those states tend to come in the 130-140 range, at 3.5. SE MN and S WI there are no doubt some exceptions to that, but I can't think of any (and I've never done any long term management work in S WI)

I know a while back in the Whitetail Institute's magazine I believe it was Scott Bestul that wrote an article that detailed some hunting stories that took place in SE MN. The article stated that the majority of 2.5 year old bucks in his area would meet the P&Y minimum or something along those lines. From what we've seen, that estimate is way off, but I'll admit our 10+ buck sample size probably isn't scientifically valid. We've been sending in teeth for CA aging for the past several years for our hunting areas in SE MN and NW WI and have found that the rough average 4.5+ buck is in the 125" range with a range of approximately +/- 30". I found it kind of odd that the mature buck antler size is similar in SE MN and NW WI even though the yearling bucks in SE MN typically have larger racks. These are on properties that we've killed or found sheds of 170" class deer, so we know the genetic line is good but the average rack size at a given age is a lot smaller than some articles have lead us to believe. I think enough bucks slip through the cracks that it would take a long time for the high grading that is a concern in APR areas. I'm sure over time the mature 6 pointers that are off limits may be more common because they are essentially protected by most hunters, but I believe the max upper end of a rack is difficult to tell by their first rack. I guess I don't know where I'm headed with this, but since the APR's have been in place in our areas we're seeing bucks with larger racks than before the rule was in place. In my opinion, APR's may not be perfect but I believe they're better than nothing. I can't explain the decrease in P&Y entries over the same time frame other than to say there are fewer deer now than there were earlier. If the deer numbers stay constant, I think the average antler size will increase with APR's. At least in our area, it's a lot more fun to have a herd with a higher mix of 2.5+ bucks with the possibility of high grading than it was to have a perfectly balanced genetic herd with very few older bucks.

 

[Steve Bartylla]

I know Scott and think he's genuinely an honest and good guy. That said, you simply can't make statements like that on 2.5 yr old bucks and be accurate. Heck, it's hard to make generalizations on antler sizes at 4.5+. At 2.5, soooooooooooooo much of what a buck has on his head is still dependent on its birth timing. I think it was John Ozoga (I know it was someone I take seriously) that said it takes a late born buck to get to be 3.5 before he really starts to shake off the impact of being born late, as it is revealed in his rack, if he is ever able to do so. My experiences line up perfectly, with that.

I've managed some absolutely primo grounds in what I feel is the ideal latitude belt (far enough south so the deer aren't really winter stressed, but far enough north that they are still a large enough sub species...Think N MO, IA, IL, OH, KS). I've never had the "majority of 2.5 year old bucks in his (any) area would meet(ing) the P&Y minimum" anywhere. I also managed a big chunk of SE MN for a good stretch of time, and I'm talking primo SE MN ground...didn't see that there, either.

I should clarify something I wrote earlier, though...I see plenty of bucks get called older than they really are in MN, WI & MI. The catch is that we don't have as many 2.5s and 3.5s that sprout incredible antlers for their age as one does in the N MO, IA, IL, OH, KSes of the world. Most hunters try to gauge age on rack size. When dealing with the 110" 4.5 yr old I had in C MN last year, most tend to think "oh, in one more year he'll be a good one, as he has to be young to have 110 inches." The 160" 12 point in IL a couple years ago, hunters tend to naturally believe he has to be a mature buck, as only mature bucks have racks like that.

There was a thread over on QDMA this past winter where they showed 4 bucks (kill and trail cam images) and asked for age guesses...3 of the 4 were 2.5 or 3.5, but most everyone over guessed their ages, as having racks that big must mean they are older deer.

 

[MoBuckChaser]

I know Scott and think he's genuinely an honest and good guy. That said, you simply can't make statements like that on 2.5 yr old bucks and be accurate. Heck, it's hard to make generalizations on antler sizes at 4.5+. At 2.5, soooooooooooooo much of what a buck has on his head is still dependent on its birth timing. I think it was John Ozoga (I know it was someone I take seriously) that said it takes a late born buck to get to be 3.5 before he really starts to shake off the impact of being born late, as it is revealed in his rack, if he is ever able to do so. My experiences line up perfectly, with that.

I've managed some absolutely primo grounds in what I feel is the ideal latitude belt (far enough south so the deer aren't really winter stressed, but far enough north that they are still a large enough sub species...Think N MO, IA, IL, OH, KS). I've never had the "majority of 2.5 year old bucks in his (any) area would meet(ing) the P&Y minimum" anywhere. I also managed a big chunk of SE MN for a good stretch of time, and I'm talking primo SE MN ground...didn't see that there, either.

I should clarify something I wrote earlier, though...I see plenty of bucks get called older than they really are in MN, WI & MI. The catch is that we don't have as many 2.5s and 3.5s that sprout incredible antlers for their age as one does in the N MO, IA, IL, OH, KSes of the world. Most hunters try to gauge age on rack size. When dealing with the 110" 4.5 yr old I had in C MN last year, most tend to think "oh, in one more year he'll be a good one, as he has to be young to have 110 inches." The 160" 12 point in IL a couple years ago, hunters tend to naturally believe he has to be a mature buck, as only mature bucks have racks like that.

There was a thread over on QDMA this past winter where they showed 4 bucks (kill and trail cam images) and asked for age guesses...3 of the 4 were 2.5 or 3.5, but most everyone over guessed their ages, as having racks that big must mean they are older deer.

For sure, I am guilty of over judging all the time I am pretty sure, on bucks I have only seen for the first time for sure. But I have seen some bucks going on 4 years now, so I know a few are at least 4-5 and up! And coming from my part of MN none of my buddies would ever believe a 2 year old buck would have a 150" rack. But when I shoot the 25 point buck I am after, That one will get his teeth checked to see if he is that young. And in Missouri, nothing would surprise me!

 

[bwoods11]

Would you be willing to give up hunting during the rut with any weapon forever in MN?

Three years would be ok. Then let the archery guys back in. The number of mature bucks would be higher. By then my guess is most hunters overall would see the benefit of moving the season back.

 

[biglakeba$$]

I think we are kidding ourselves that we will ever see any change in MN....... Its nice to dream, but any of the options posted on this thread, I dont ever see happening. Hate to be a negative nelly, but its the sad reality.

 

[sandbur]

Three years would be ok. Then let the archery guys back in. The number of mature bucks would be higher. By then my guess is most hunters overall would see the benefit of moving the season back.

If gun hunters can't hunt the rut, NO ONE should hunt it. I stand very firm on that point and I am sure a very large number of northern hunters will feel the same way.

I have spent 4 days walking areas for grouse up in zone 1. Today, I walked about 7 miles of a clover trail thru a young and middle aged popple forest, It should have been great deer habitat. I saw one scrape and one deer track. ONE deer track. I do not know how the deer camps can exist in these areas. RUT is the only chance for these guys to see a buck as the deer must travel long distances to find a doe. Don't talk APR's either when hunters may only see one buck at best per season, and maybe only one deer.

All of this talk about moving the season out of the rut, but there are very few north woods hunters on here to express their opinions.. Some deer herds are migratory and some areas/camps could easily be inaccessible with a two week later season. One third of Mn. is further north than northern Wis.

For my daughter's and my wife's sakes, I sincerely hope firearm season stays in the rut. They are not cold weather hunters and deserve the right to enjoy a rut hunt as much as those who are only interested in antler porn. We need all hunters in our voting block, instead of constantly trying to cut our hunter numbers so just a few dedicated individuals can feed their egos with a big buck.

I understand this about egos and big bucks. I have been there and my wife pointed out to me that I should change if my daughters were going to hunt with me. Enjoy the hunt and let others enjoy the hunt in their own way, as long as it is legal.

 

[bwoods11]

I'll take B but eliminating party hunting should be part of an option or an option by itself. D is a close second in my opinion. Too many seasons and they're all too long.

Actually I forgot about that sorry. I know for a fact that Lou and some of the others at the DNR do not like party hunting

B + eliminating party hunting would result in more bucks surviving

 

[Freeborn]

I think we are kidding ourselves that we will ever see any change in MN....... Its nice to dream, but any of the options posted on this thread, I dont ever see happening. Hate to be a negative nelly, but its the sad reality.

OK, for you guys who don't think anything will change, what do you think will happen? Do you think the DNR has such an agenda they would fight an audit or the legislation? I just want to get your thoughts on how far they would take fighting an effort for change.

 

[bwoods11]

If gun hunters can't hunt the rut, NO ONE should hunt it. I stand very firm on that point and I am sure a very large number of northern hunters will feel the same way.

I have spent 4 days walking areas for grouse up in zone 1. Today, I walked about 7 miles of a clover trail thru a young and middle aged popple forest, It should have been great deer habitat. I saw one scrape and one deer track. ONE deer track. I do not know how the deer camps can exist in these areas. RUT is the only chance for these guys to see a buck as the deer must travel long distances to find a doe. Don't talk APR's either when hunters may only see one buck at best per season, and maybe only one deer.

All of this talk about moving the season out of the rut, but there are very few north woods hunters on here to express their opinions.. Some deer herds are migratory and some areas/camps could easily be inaccessible with a two week later season. One third of Mn. is further north than northern Wis.

For my daughter's and my wife's sakes, I sincerely hope firearm season stays in the rut. They are not cold weather hunters and deserve the right to enjoy a rut hunt as much as those who are only interested in antler porn. We need all hunters in our voting block, instead of constantly trying to cut our hunter numbers so just a few dedicated individuals can feed their egos with a big buck.

I understand this about egos and big bucks. I have been there and my wife pointed out to me that I should change if my daughters were going to hunt with me. Enjoy the hunt and let others enjoy the hunt in their own way, as long as it is legal.

I think many would be open to Zone 1 having a different season structure. Moving to he season back one week would not hurt zone 1. I know first hand (hunting near the Canadian border) near Hallock on my 228 acres. The rut is more intense around Nov 15-20....my neighbors see the same thing. It can't be much different to the east?? Correct?

 

[bwoods11]

OK, for you guys who don't think anything will change, what do you think will happen? Do you think the DNR has such an agenda they would fight an audit or the legislation? I just want to get your thoughts on how far they would take fighting an effort for change.

In the next 10 years one of those options will happen I'd put money on it.

 

[bwoods11]

Ok 3-1odds you can't give me even number. This is a tough battle

Case of leinenkugels?? 10 years from today??:cool:

 

[Riggsgwp->]

Art do you think it would be fair for the rut to be split in half with bowhunters getting the first half and gun hunters starting the second half? I feel a lot better when gun season starts on the 8th or 9th compared to the 2nd or 3rd of November. I would like to enjoy bucks cruising in daylight hours just as much as a gun hunter would. You have to agree that the gun season has a major impact on normal deer rut activity.

 

[bwoods11]

I'll do the case of Leinie's....but 3-1 odds...no way...your bet, even odds

Ok deal--one case and I'll throw in some great venison brats if I lose.... Times a ticking

 

[MoBuckChaser]

Wow, what a bet! Stu you be the Man!

Sorry 11 you is out one box of crappy beer!

 

[Freeborn]

Nothing..that's what I think will happen. I think MN will continue to have huge peaks and valleys in the harvest and the days of being a trophy buck state are over. The herd will remain at suppressed levels. Hunters will continue to buy licenses and do nothing about the dwindling quality (and quantity) of the hunt.

OK,

I’m more optimistic then you are but then again you have been closer to the fight and I know what it’s like to work hard and see no results. I would agree that culturally we have our challenges but let’s face it any change would be an improvement.

Hard to say what will happen but it’s obvious there are those in the hunting community who would do anything to protect their hidden agendas.

This thread and forum is for open discussion and I think it’s good we debate ideas and get different perspectives, its healthy and shows we care about the resource.

Hopefully MDDI will be the start of some change to DNR policy.

 

[MoBuckChaser]

Shit...I'd gladly buy bwoods 5 cases of really good beer if things were to change significantly for the positive here...I'm just out of optimism. Sorry fellas

Nothing to be sorry about Stu, a lot of us feel that way! But I am still hoping to be on my areas stakeholder team to try and make some kind of difference.

 

[biglakeba$$]

bwoods,

of the 4 choices, what one do you think has the best chance of ever even being discussed publicly by the DNR for hunter input?

I honestly dont think any of those will gain enough support to even move past a pipe dream status with vast majority of hunters we have today.

Zone 1 will NEVER get the season pushed back a week or two.... First screams I can already hear is the hunters saying its already cold enough where its at.... Call me crazy.... But we live in a state where people are happy with what they have.... And as I told Brooks the other night as we sat having some barley pops.... The longer this sub par deer hunting continues,,,, the younger generation of hunters will know no different. They are growing up seeing what we have now, so 5, 10, 15+ years of the same thing and they are brainwashed into the fact that "this is hunting in MN"........ It will become whats expected and what they have to look forward to. The kids that lock in and stick with hunting wont be able to complain, because it will be all that they know....

 

[Greta&Gus]

So a friend of mine's son shot a doe in zone 241. He is 14 and I think that is awesome. She is seeing deer all over the place, I have a hard time believing it. Other than that I am hearing bad reports of very few year.

Here is the kicker, no one, and I mean no one, wants to hold off on what they shoot. They are mad. I mean MAD. That the DNR reduced the doe harvest. No one I talk to off of this forum, in any zone, can think past this November. The herd will have to be much less than it is today for the hunters to start changing their habits. We will see a lot of poaching this year.

 

[biglakeba$$]

We are shooting no does off our land this year except my daughter maybe.

Her first year of hunting and I will be damned if I am going to limit her options for her first time hunting. She gets to choose. She knows none of us are shooting does and I have told her she can decide whatever she wants to do.

Wont be too many years of kids being told they cant shoot does, and she will be losing interest in no time. I really do not want that.