Fish Felon wrote:Look, there are a lot of different directions I could take with this post...I could retaliate to your retaliation of me going too far with my last post and being a dick....your comparison of the fishery resources of the Dakotas to those in the Land of Lincoln provides me enough material alone.....but you seem like a good sport and I've really enjoyed your contributions thus far....so I'm going to try be more civil.
You have my curiosity. Your take is new to me when it comes to the pro-APR/QDM guys arguing in support of APR/QDM.
The question I have for you is.....what do you want?
Beyond the obvious answer of "more big bucks."
I'm one of the few people that's actually agreed with you. We both think moving the gun season later so it's after the rut is a great compromise for all the varying types of deer hunters and should be done.
What else would you want done?
What has me the most intrigued is your main emphasis; MN should attract scores of non-resident deer hunters. Why do you feel that way?
Is it a matter of pride for the state, or a way to point out the failed management of the herd, do you have an economic stake in more hunters coming, is it more for being pro-tourism in general, etc?
I'm sincerely not trying to put words in your mouth but it seems like you want more big bucks so more hunters come here??? I'd like to know why, completely out of curiosity....not saying that more non-resident hunters is a good or bad thing or looking to discuss it (I'm ambivalent one way or the other), I'm only interested understanding why this seems to be a main sticking point for you.
I appreciate the tactful insight and apologize for my last post.... you didn't deserve it. I read it and responded when I had very little time for a thoughtful civil response.
You asked a lot of questions here and instead of answering them all in linear fashion I'll somewhat summarize: The main question is WHY DO WE WANT MORE BIG DEER?
First off, Nobody can argue that taking our gun hunters and pushing them post rut would grow bigger deer. It's not my opinion, it's a fact. Iowa, Wisconsin, Kansas (to name a few) all have post rut gun seasons. Other states like ND mirror ours w/ season dates, however, tags are HEAVILY restricted to both non-res and residents. Going further than that look at elk seasons out west. Virtually no state would ever, EVER!, consider placing unlimited rifle tags during the heart of september rut. Colorado has unlimited gun tags (in something like 75zones) but it's for 2nd rifle, 3rd and maybe even 4th. And people SPRINT to that state to hunt @ $629 (this years prices) per tag. Can you imagine if they did what MN does to their most precious money making game animal. There'd be 2 or 3 years of ridiculously fantastic elk hunting before the impending ghost town feeling in all their national forests, wilderness areas, blm lands, etc... Then non-res would go somewhere else and CO would lose big money. So to answer your "what do you want" question that's it. Move the gun season, nothing more/nothing less. Nature will honestly take care of the rest. On a normal year, younger bucks will be done, or close to done rutting and be much less vulnerable, allowing them to grow and mature.
The answer to your question "WHY?" isn't overly complex. I have a few personal reasons I'll get to in a minute but the three obvious reasons that benefit the overall population of MN are simple:
1) Revenue. As sick as it may seem to weigh lives of animals to a $$ figure, it's not something we can ignore. The almighty dollar speaks. I read an essay a while back (circa 2011'sh) where the author figured just on license sales alone MN was losing to the sum of 18 million dollars by having gun season where it is. You ask why would we want non-res to swarm to MN to hunt deer I'd ask why not? I mean look at the economic impact a poor fishery has on one giant pond in the middle of our state? The entire state of MN is like the equivalent of mille lacs on the deer side, only instead of a dozen or so communities, resort owners, etc.. It's state wide.. The only reason it's tough to grasp is because we've never seen the "hay days" of deer hunting in MN, at least not like what other states have/are currently experiencing. Like I said, now more than ever people are willing to travel and pay in hopes to shoot big deer. If whitetail deer in this country is thought of as a pie, states like Iowa are getting a huge portion, why wouldn't we want the same? As a side note, I don't work in a field whereit would benefit me to have scores of non-resident hunters oming to MN. I do have friends and family it would benefit in the hospitality and food/restaurant industry it would help but not me personally.
2) Recruitment and Retention. This one is a little more subjective but needs to be considered. It's not a secret that we're losing hunters in droves. The DNR has some clever new programs aimed at fixing some of that but a large of kids turning to adults and so on are walking away from hunting. A large number of adults are stopping because it's gotten so bad. Hobbydog's experience is one I've heard hundreds if not thousands of times over the last few years. "I didn't buy a tag for the first time in "X" number of years because it's not worth it". My cousin grew up in SE MN on one of the best farms I've ever seen and walked away from hunting. Class mates I graduated with, kids I went to college with, etc...In-laws aren't going to their cabin up north anymore to hunt deer. ALOT of people are walking away from deer hunting. I used to think it was just me and the people I know but it's not. Talk with other folks at QDMA, SCI Banquets, etc... and many have similar stories that I do. So what's that mean? Quite frankly there's some we won't recruit, we'll lose them to every day life, apathy, etc... But like waterfowl hunting, the deer hunters that are out there are getting far more serious, spending whatever it costs to shoot big deer. They aren't (however) doing it here.
3rd) Biology. I think we all can agree having a diverse age structure benefits all facets of nature, including whitetail deer. When the vast majority of bucks harvested don't reach beyond 1 1/2 YO it's a problem. I don't see any other way to look at it, we have a young deer herd that's staying young. All this ties into each other as a perpetual cycle, older deer means better diversity means better hunter recruitment/retention means more revenue.
Lastly from a personal standpoint why do I want to see bigger deer? As selfish or little-man syndrome sounding as it may seem I want worthy adversaries in the deer woods. It's human nature to continually set the bar for themselves and achieve goals. It's not for bragging rights, my trophy wall most would deem pathetic. I could care less about scores, I mostly use them as a point of reference. I much prefer skulls vs shoulder mounts so I can pick them up every day and admire the character of each individual rack vs. stappling them above my mantle and peering at them from a distance. When I take a deer, most of my friends or family don't know about it until they ask. I want deer in MN that are worth sitting for 2 mos almost every day in the stand for. I could go out most evenings and shoot 1.5YO's all day but the pursuit is what intrigues me and keeps me going. I mastered pursuing immature deer decades ago, but I barely even have the opportunity to hunt older deer in my home state. Again this one is purely selfish and isn't a reason I ever use as an argument as to why we should have bigger deer in MN, it's more a goal/accomplishment thing than anything.