MN bills introduced to allow crossbows during archery season.

One year we did not have an Early Antlerless Season but on opening day, a guy was sitting on a deer crossing with a scoped rifle. Squirrel hunting? If he was Native American, he could legally hunt deer. I just quickly moved on.

I suspect he didn’t check the zone map and assumed we had Early Antlerless season as in previous years.
 
I knew someone would post that article here lol. It will be interesting to see how it shakes out at the end of the season. This is just a somewhat misleading headline by posting the percentage of deer harvested up to now. Are the numbers comparable to last year's vertical only archery season after just two weeks? I bet there ends up being more total archery deer harvested this year.

I think it's a great thing if people are getting out and hunting more, especially people that would not have hunted otherwise. I just hope MNDNR is collecting enough data to be able to make informed conclusions about the impact this has on the deer herd.
 
I knew someone would post that article here lol. It will be interesting to see how it shakes out at the end of the season. This is just a somewhat misleading headline by posting the percentage of deer harvested up to now. Are the numbers comparable to last year's vertical only archery season after just two weeks? I bet there ends up being more total archery deer harvested this year.

I think it's a great thing if people are getting out and hunting more, especially people that would not have hunted otherwise. I just hope MNDNR is collecting enough data to be able to make informed conclusions about the impact this has on the deer herd.

“informed decisions” Ha! Crossbows won’t be the light switch that makes any meaningful difference in total population numbers which is the only thing the DNR manages. They couldn’t care less if hunting sucks as long as there are enough does to keep a healthy crop of 1.5 Yo bucks on the menu every fall.

Edit: to clarify, I think the DNR might care about quality of hunting if they got sufficient feedback that indicated hunters were willing to give an inch to get it. Instead they get feedback indicating hunters want it to be as easy as possible to kill deer.
 
Last edited:
I knew someone would post that article here lol. It will be interesting to see how it shakes out at the end of the season. This is just a somewhat misleading headline by posting the percentage of deer harvested up to now. Are the numbers comparable to last year's vertical only archery season after just two weeks? I bet there ends up being more total archery deer harvested this year.

I think it's a great thing if people are getting out and hunting more, especially people that would not have hunted otherwise. I just hope MNDNR is collecting enough data to be able to make informed conclusions about the impact this has on the deer herd.
I hope you are correct by the DNR monitors harvest with the diverse habitat and varying deer numbers across the state. My concerns are about increased doe harvests in the areas with lottery for firearm doe harvest. The severe winter and wolf numbers have kept deer numbers very low in some areas.
 
“informed decisions” Ha! Crossbows won’t be the light switch that makes any meaningful difference in total population numbers which is the only thing the DNR manages. They couldn’t care less if hunting sucks as long as there are enough does to keep a healthy crop of 1.5 Yo bucks on the menu every fall.

Edit: to clarify, I think the DNR might care about quality of hunting if they got sufficient feedback that indicated hunters were willing to give an inch to get it. Instead they get feedback indicating hunters want it to be as easy as possible to kill deer.

Trust me, they do not care. We spent years confirming as much.

The destruction of natural resources agency’s only job is to keep a boot on the throat of the deer herd, kill trees, and eliminate private recreational land ownership as fast as they possibly can, and to con sportsmen into paying for it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Trust me, they do not care. We spent years confirming as much.

The destruction of natural resources agency’s only job is to keep a boot on the throat of the deer herd, kill trees, and eliminate private recreational land ownership as fast as they possibly can, and to con sportsmen into paying for it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I bet you're a lot of fun at parties? 😄
 
Trust me, they do not care. We spent years confirming as much.

The destruction of natural resources agency’s only job is to keep a boot on the throat of the deer herd, kill trees, and eliminate private recreational land ownership as fast as they possibly can, and to con sportsmen into paying for it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If the public overwhelmingly demanded a certain style of management I believe we might actually get close to it. Unfortunately, the public largely gets the wildlife meddling from the legislature and the DNR management they voted and advocated for.

Sure, they allowed people to shoot the shit out of the herd until 2015ish and have blame for that but it seems numbers temporarily bounced back in lots of places (before back to back severe winters and stupid CWD regs shot more does). Now? Zone 1 sucks but until CWD zone crap happened, its not like a ton of does were getting sluiced to my knowledge up there? Central and SE parts of the state has a bunch of deer and the only reason hunting isn't good is due to the actions and advocacy or lack thereof of hunters themselves. MN deer hunters want to blame everyone/everything but their refusal to give up party rifle hunting in the peak of the rut.

The DNR has paid me to plant trees and improve my private recreational land. Why would they do that if their goal was to kill all the trees and eliminate my ownership of it?

The DNR claimed 40 some deer per square mile in my deer zone yet they went from 2 deer limit to 1 deer hunters choice this year there. Doesn't seem like a move to keep a boot on the throat of the herd. I'm swimming in deer and wish they woulda kept a 2 deer limit.
 
Meanwhile, we've got the state "conservation" org related to deer hunting championing crossbows for all and significantly higher target harvest rates than the DNR..
 
I need more doe tags, I promise you that! Been in the 200 zone for 10 years, first couple we could only have an either/or tag, then one bonus, and now I believe we can shoot two "bonus" does.

DNR has paid me for buckthorn removal and tree planting as well.
 
Hang tight, I'll go dig it up. I've got a slow afternoon, and this will give me something to do...
 
The DNR has paid me to plant trees and improve my private recreational land. Why would they do that if their goal was to kill all the trees and eliminate my ownership of it?
It wouldn't be their first contradicting management plan. Here we go:

The forest and wildlife managers have a mandate to deliver the highest timber value from state timber properties (public lands). Straight from the Sustainable Forest Resources Act of 1995:


1696016661665.png

In 2005, the state of MN gave away management of our forests to the Forest Stewardship Council, ran by a bunch of people in Germany that have no accountability to us. They do regular audits of our forest management, and if they see too much deer browse, they order the state to reduce the deer herd.

1696017151798.png

Every year, the germans send in auditors to rip apart management of our forests, and they provide nifty reports to ensure nobody needs to be spanked. They took down the older ones we were using during the MDDI days to showcase that MN had surrendered management of our forests to an international entity, and they were telling the DNR they were in violation of their certification because pockets of the state had too many deer and it was affecting profitability of the forests. You can view the most recent ones here.


The DNR never misses an opportunity to moan about the parcelization problem and how it affects their ability to make money off the forests. It's in almost every forestry report they produce. Here's one they did back in 2010 just on this very subject. Note that they see private land ownership (you) as the single biggest threat to their property and money.


1696017999160.png

The state of MN is pouring hundreds of millions of dollars, and some years, billions of dollars into buying up land or easements on land. I think they've got more money than they have willing sellers. The recent run up in inflation is sure to put a dent in their ability to grab it as fast as they'd like, but I'm sure they'll keep at it. I've got the links at home that show the LCCMR or LSOHC master plan for how many acres they want to acquire in all the different regions in MN.

Lastly, where are they ripping out the trees? Here. Cross the border into South Dakota, they're putting in shelter belts and they have tons of pheasants. MN and the Feds can't rip them out fast enough. I used to mushroom hunt Gislason Lake NWR by Marshall, MN. One year we showed up and they had about 80 acres sheered clean with USFWS excavators. Every plum, dogwood, crabapple, willow, spruce, cedar, elm, ash, oak, etc was ripped out and piled up.

1696019380163.png


1696019188001.png
 

Attachments

  • 1696016591670.png
    1696016591670.png
    107.4 KB · Views: 10
What to take away from that?

The state views deer and rural private land owners as threats to their master plan.
 
I guess I'm confused about if they are protecting trees for future timber value or if they are ripping out trees to limit nest predators.

SD, do you have a favorable view of invasive species such as buckthorn?
 
I’m assuming that they get a big kickback for every tree that gets planted on private land. It also wouldn’t surprise me one bit if they are wanting people to plant them so one day the state can buy the private properties the trees were planted on just so they can submit an inflated bill to the tax payers to remove them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I guess I'm confused about if they are protecting trees for future timber value or if they are ripping out trees to limit nest predators.

SD, do you have a favorable view of invasive species such as buckthorn?

Come on man. I worked really hard putting all that info together. If you’re gonna carry the pro-government flag on this one, you owe it to them and our observers here to do better. There are lots of people in the middle that still believe the state and the DNR are there to serve the interests of sportsmen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I'll read the information you cited later tonight. I'm not pro or anti-government when it comes to conservation. The DNR and their hunting regs are always suspect, but I don't necessarily feel the same way about the forestry dept.
 
It’s nationwide status quo for state trust lands to need to be managed for profitability or be disposed of so that they must be managed for timber value is no surprise. I know nothing of this forest stewardship council but will have to read more about it now.

In regards to parcelization, what are they saying about the negative impacts that aren’t true? Habitat, disturbance, timber development, timber harvest efficiency, etc don’t get better typically by splitting large parcels up.

In regards to the tall grass prairie stuff, really dislike what I’ve read about removing all that cover. More so if what they are saying about waterfowl and other ground nesting birds isn’t proven but I don’t know enough.

Still think if Minnesotans made it known they value deer over some of these other things it could be different but most MN hunters would probably ask for the least restrictions possible when it comes to killing any deer we do have.
 
In regards to the tall grass prairie stuff, really dislike what I’ve read about removing all that cover. More so if what they are saying about waterfowl and other ground nesting birds isn’t proven but I don’t know enough.
Years ago Delta Waterfowl and DU both did studies on waterfowl nests/acre on their project grounds, I'm talking 25 years ago or so. Delta used trapping on their sites and DU did not because DU is about all the critters (a whole different story), anyways the Delta sites with predator control were anywhere from 3 to 7 times more successful in nests/acre. Upland and waterfowl benefit in huge ways from predator control, same with turkeys. It has been said that (for waterfowl) the hunter harvest has virtually no impact on the population in relation to nest success. Obviously nest success is habitat and predator related.

Most nest predators need trees to escape their own predators, so it goes without saying that trees in upland related sites are detrimental to bird reproduction.
 
In regards to parcelization, what are they saying about the negative impacts that aren’t true? Habitat, disturbance, timber development, timber harvest efficiency, etc don’t get better typically by splitting large parcels up.

In regards to the tall grass prairie stuff, really dislike what I’ve read about removing all that cover. More so if what they are saying about waterfowl and other ground nesting birds isn’t proven but I don’t know enough.
I'm sure those things about parcelization are a big deal. In a lot of the forested counties of northern MN, the combined government and tribal entities already own well north of 80% of the land. So I would ask, what percentage of those lands do they need to be satisfied that they are protected? Is it 90%, 95%, 100%? What is the appropriate amount of land that should be available to Americans that want to own land? Should private land even merit a seat at the table? Maybe we only deserve to live in high rises in the twin cities.

Another good question is this: Why doesn't clean water, habitat, and wildlife concerns also merit 80% or better protection in farm country or the metro area? Surely there were natural habitats there before manifest destiny rolled across the plains? The big problem with all of this is we're shoveling all of our land and land rights into the hands of lunatics. We don't know who the SFC answers to. We have a pretty good idea where the legislature and governor stand on their opinion of the people of rocks and cows country. Our federal officials are falling all over themselves to hand our futures over to billionaire psychos and the world economic forum. It should terrify everyone that we send our highest ranking pedophiles to Davos and they come back blithering the same lines heard out of the politicians from the EU and Canada at the direction of whomever has their hand up Klaus Schwabs butt.

With the recent explosion in inflation, I'd venture to say the door is officially closed for the next generation to ever own their own piece of land anywhere in the country unless they inherit it. They'll at least have to forego the other two legs of the american dream, a home and a family. I'd venture to guess the bottom 90% might be able to have 1 of the 3 from here forward if they are lucky. That's the world we're leaving our children. A people with no land are not people, they are subjects.

Far as the tallgrass prairie management plan, it would make some sense if the prairie was a sea of brushy cover, to have some big blocks of cover with no predator perches, but it most certainly is not. In most counties of SW and western MN, the only thing to stop the wind out there is hog barns and grain bins. Where there happens to be a 40 or 80 acre piece that was set aside for wildlife, and it's the only pocket of winter cover for ten miles, the euphorians have to go and tear out that sliver of winter cover to satisfy their theory on what the plains were before man. Why don't the song birds that nest 5-10' off the ground merit consideration? Or the deer? Or the pheasants? The fox squirrel?

I'm sorry it's long winded, but I'm afraid I'll live to see the faces of those that come after us wondering what in the hell we were thinking.
 
Top