| | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BWA Newsletter - July 2006A Bluffland Whitetails Association quarterly publication for
Reader snaps
Houston County OKs shooting fenced deerIn a recent ruling by the Houston County Board of Commissioners, a Conditional Use Permit will be granted to a local landowner for the operation of a game preserve that will allow shooting of pen-raised trophy whitetail bucks. Despite objections by Bluffland Whitetails Association and many area residents, the board recommended the permit be given to Larry Ledebuhr of Mound Prairie Township. The preserve, which will be enclosed by an eight-foot-high fence, will allow shooting between July 1 and January 31. Shooters would be required to pay a substantial fee for the opportunity to kill a fenced whitetail buck. During public meetings held to discuss the issue, several concerns were brought to the attention of the board. Public safety issues, such as the potential for stray bullets or slugs, were a concern to some area residents, as were hunter ethics and chronic wasting disease (CWD). In light of these events, the ethics of shooting fenced animals have come under close scrutiny. Most hunters abide by the rules of fair-chase and reflect a positive image to the general public. Many of us remember all too well the CBS Television show “Guns of Autumn,” which used film clips of “hunters” shooting big game within enclosures to enrage the public and further the cause of anti-hunters. Aired in September of 1975, the show became a rallying cry for both anti-hunters and hunting advocates in the dispute over animal rights. BWA supports all legal methods of big game hunting, provided that the hunts are conducted in the spirit of fair-chase (defined as the ethical, sportsmanlike, and lawful pursuit and harvest of free-ranging wild game animals in a manner that does not give the hunter an improper or unfair advantage over such animals). We feel that sport hunting of captive big game animals defies the level of ethics practiced by hunters, and also detracts from the image of hunting, providing fodder for the arguments of animal rightists who seek to end hunting as a method of recreation and wild game management. In the last several years, CWD and bovine tuberculosis have been detected in deer and elk in the Midwest, leading to financial losses in every state in which they have been diagnosed. Although definitive proof remains elusive, many feel there is strong circumstantial evidence to suggest that the close proximity of deer and elk within enclosures and the interstate transfer of captive deer may facilitate the spread of CWD to wild cervid populations. Indeed, in a 2004 publication, top CWD researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the University of Wyoming, the Colorado Division of Wildlife, and Case Western Reserve University stated that CWD in Wisconsin was most likely imported from elsewhere. CWD has been diagnosed in game farm animals within Minnesota, requiring extensive testing of wild deer across the state to assess the health of the herd. At this time, no wild deer have tested positive for CWD. Game farms have not taken financial responsibility for testing the areas surrounding a CWD outbreak, leaving hunters with the check for deer surveillance. Instead, game farm representatives have placed the blame on wild deer, suggesting that free-ranging whitetails may be the source of CWD. It is an easy statement to make. Little is known about the transmission of prion diseases and their infectious processes and the long incubation period makes tracking the disease arduous. However, the data that are available would suggest that wild deer are not the source of infection. According to Minnesota DNR big game program coordinator, Lou Cornicelli, approximately 28,000 deer have been tested for CWD to date. In most of the areas tested, researchers are 95 percent confident (a statistical threshold for confidence in a finding) that no CWD-infected animals are present. For those opposed to the shooting of fenced deer, the only recourse now seems to be legislative action to outlaw or severely limit the practice. BWA and other conservation groups are dedicated to pushing this legislation in the next session. The game preserve lobby is well-organized and influential. Therefore, it is crucial that readers contact their legislators to voice their opposition. We will do our part, but we need you to do yours as well.
—Chris Kolbert
In the spotlight...
Dave SchadWhite Bear Lake, MN Occupation: DNR director, Division of Fish and Wildlife I am a life-long Minnesota resident and grew up in Stillwater, along the St. Croix River. Our family enjoyed camping and other outdoor activities together, but my dad's hunting expeditions were what first got me interested in hunting, and also in a career in fish and wildlife management. He was an avid waterfowl and deer hunter. In fact, he was part of a deer hunting “gang” that made annual trips to the Nemadji State Forest each fall to a hunting cabin the group leased from the state. My first deer hunt with the gang was to be in 1971; but unfortunately, the deer season was closed that year due to low deer populations, so I had to wait until 1972 for my first deer hunt. That first hunt “hooked me,” and I have been passionate about hunting and the outdoors ever since. I have to admit to a bunch of deer enthusiasts that waterfowl hunting is my first passion, followed by pheasants and other upland game birds. However, I still try to get into the deer woods each fall. My wife and I also make several fishing trips into the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness each summer; and in recent years, I have picked up the ice fishing bug as well. I've been with the DNR for 25 years, mostly in the wildlife section. After completing a Bachelor of Science degree at the University of Minnesota, my first job was to help conduct and analyze mail surveys that are sent to hunters and trappers to determine harvest and participation rates. I also spent five years as an area wildlife manager in Cambridge, was a regional wildlife manager in Brainerd for several years, worked for two years with waterfowl and wetland programs, and supervised wildlife field operations from the central office for the past four to five years. However, the experience that is probably of most interest to BWA members is the 10 years I spent overseeing big game and forest management programs. In that position, I was responsible for bear, moose, elk, and of course, deer management programs. I oversaw development of hunting regulations for these species, set priorities for research and management programs, and worked extensively with big game hunters to discuss the many issues associated with management of big game in the state. Our greatest challenge during those years were the consecutive severe winters in the late 1990s, and the deer feeding debate that raged in the public and legislature those years. During that time, we also saw the first interest in “Quality Deer Management”—discussions that continue to this day—and developed the state's first regulations to allow hunters to take additional deer in response to high deer populations in metro communities and elsewhere. I also supervised the deer culling and testing program that the DNR conducted in Aitkin several years ago when chronic wasting disease (CWD) was first discovered in the state. During that operation, DNR shooters killed approximately 100 deer in the vicinity of a farm where a captive elk had died from the disease to determine whether CWD had passed to wild deer. Fortunately, no CWD was found in any of the deer tested, and since then statewide testing and monitoring have not turned up the disease in the state. In January 2006, I was appointed the Director of the DNR Division of Fish and Wildlife. The Fish and Wildlife Division is the largest of the department's seven divisions. It includes more than 650 employees and an annual budget of approximately $60 million. The division is primarily funded from fishing, hunting, and trapping license fees and other dedicated federal revenues. We are responsible for managing habitats and populations for fish and game species, and overseeing hunting and fishing regulations and seasons (among other things). My wife and I live in White Bear Lake with our nine-year-old springer spaniel. My recent appointment as division director has been very challenging, and unfortunately has cut into my recreation time. I am an avid runner and bicyclist, and time for those activities has suffered as well as a result of my new job. I am looking forward to meeting Bluffland members and leadership, and working with your organization to improve deer management and deer hunting in the state. If you ever have a question about DNR programs or issues, please do not hesitate to contact me—I would love to hear from you!
Dave Schad, Director
A message from BWA's president...Summer greetings to BWA newsletter readers. I just finished reading my president's letter from last summer—really doesn't seem like that long ago. I guess times flies "when you are having fun" or maybe getting mature (old!). At any rate, summer is here and that means fall hunting season is just a few months away. Let's visit some of the issues from the outdoor arena. For ten years outdoor groups in Minnesota have worked hard to get some stable funding sources for Minnesota's game, fish, clean water, and wetland preservation. In recent years, this has evolved to a plan of dedicated funding of a fraction of one percent of the sales tax. The state of Missouri has been using a similar plan for many years. This year the plan came really close but failed to survive in the closing hours of the last legislative season. In my opinion, this failed because of a power struggle between political parties rather than on the merit of the proposal. This is very unfortunate because there is a dire need for substantial, consistent funding for the wealth of Minnesota outdoor natural resources. BWA went to the legislature this past session with a proposal to add a one dollar surcharge to the main deer license. This money would then be dedicated to funding locker plants for processing donated venison. This would give a hunter the opportunity to harvest a deer or two extra and donate it to charity and have free processing. This program has been used very successfully in Iowa and Wisconsin the past few years, with Iowa having over six thousand deer processed in 2005. This would provide an excellent chance for hunters to do their part in helping the DNR manage deer in the areas with over population. We got a late start and failed this last session but will return next year to hopefully get this program up and running in Minnesota. This fall the fourth annual youth gun hunt will be held in the Whitewater Management area. BWA got the first-ever special youth hunt in Minnesota started here four years ago. This event has been very popular and successful. Youth hunters will need to remember to get their applications sent in on time. The application deadline is August 18, 2006.
This past spring at our Owatonna deer expo, Gordon Whittington was one of the seminar speakers. Gordon is former long-term editor of North American Whitetail magazine and now leads their popular and successful TV series on the Outdoor Channel. The past few years, Gordon, together with Dr. James Kroll and other leading deer wildlife specialists, have sponsored an intense four-day North American Whitetail University session on whitetail management. I attended one of these events in southern Texas in February 2005. It was very enjoyable and extremely informative for individuals doing deer management on their own land or hunting property. BWA has worked out an agreement with these people to do a three-day Whitetail University series this coming September at Eagle Bluff in Lanesboro, Minnesota. Look for more information on this course later on in this newsletter. BWA is very excited about sponsoring this event, and I assure you, this North American Whitetail group provides a class act! Following this message is some data on the zone 3 deer harvest from 2005 and also some historical information covering the years 1993 to 2005. Here are some points I came up with after studying the data.
—Jim Vagts, president
Turkeys fire up two-dozen kids about huntingDouble Bull Blinds, Volunteers Help Deliver Terrific Special Hunt
Ryan Bronson Sometimes, it works out just right. For Katelyn Murray of Pine Island, the stars were aligned as a 24-pound tom turkey flew down from the roost and made a beeline for the decoy placed out in front of her. At 6:19 a.m. the turkey paused 20 yards from the Double Bull Blind, bellowed out a gobble that shook his 10-inch beard, and then kept coming. At 6:20, Katelyn squeezed the trigger and claimed the first of (hopefully) many turkeys yet to come.
The DNR has been experimenting with special youth turkey hunts since 2004. The goal is to provide high-quality hunting experiences for first-time turkey hunters and to teach them the skills needed to be successful turkey hunters on their own. To accomplish that, we require the hunters to be accompanied by a parent or guardian (many of whom have little or no turkey hunting experience of their own), and we pair them up with an experienced turkey-hunting guide. In that way, the guide can teach both the kid and adult how to hunt turkeys, thus empowering them to hunt on their own in the future. This model seems to be the most successful at recruiting new hunters and helping to keep them. All participants are required to attend a pre-hunt orientation session where the basics of turkey hunting technique and safety are taught by experienced turkey hunters. Chester Woods County Park is 1300 acres in Olmsted County just a few miles outside of Rochester that, if you don’t pay attention, you can drive right by on Highway 14. The wooded park has some of the best turkey habitat in the area; a fact that local farmers can attest to. Conservation Officer Mitch Boyum had fielded a number of calls from landowners that had experienced some problems with turkeys getting into their feed. Boyum approached the park staff, including park manager Tom Ekdahl and Olmsted Parks Superintendent Jim Foote in early 2005 about holding a special youth hunt. They were supportive, so Mitch contacted me to help get it set up. After receiving the blessing of the local parks advisory commission, and getting an ordinance change from the Olmsted County Board to allow the hunt, the DNR was able to include the hunt in its annual youth turkey hunt rule package in December of last year. Officer Boyum led the charge to recruit volunteers from a number of conservation organizations including NWTF and BWA. Over 30 guides volunteered to take the parent-child teams into the field April 8-9 and April 15-16, and the Deer Creek chapter of NWTF provided lunch both Saturdays where kids experienced the camaraderie of hunting camp. At 4:00 a.m. on the first day of the hunt, a dozen hunter-parent-guide groups trudged into the woods in 20-degree temperatures. The cold caught many by surprise as they shivered inside their Double Bulls, but the gobbles that started tearing through the woods helped warm things up quickly. By noon on the first day, five of the 12 hunters had bagged birds. Four more tagged out on Sunday, giving the first-ever Chester Woods Turkey hunt a 75 percent harvest rate. The second Saturday hunt was warm and sunny, but only one hunter connected on a bird. Easter Sunday morning was rainy, but the 10 remaining hunters stuck it out inside their dry blinds and were able to tag three more birds to bring the harvest total to four for 11, or a respectable 36 percent. Youth hunts like this are a lot of fun to be around. Seeing the excitement on the kids’ and parents’ faces is gratifying, but generating warm feelings is not enough to call these events a success. Are we accomplishing our goal of recruiting future hunters? Following the hunt, we surveyed both the youth and their parents. While none of the youth had ever hunted turkeys before, 31 percent of the parents were experiencing it for the first time, and another 19 percent had two or less years of turkey hunting experience. Both the parents and children had 88 percent report that they were more likely to hunt turkeys on their own in the future as a result of the youth hunt experience. The hunters also had positive experiences in the field. 81 percent saw six or more birds and 100 percent heard gobbles. One young hunter reported in his comments that his guide had taught him— “It’s all about the gobble, not just the gobbler”— indicating that at least that particular youth valued the experience of the hunt as much as he valued the kill. On a 1 to 5 scale, the guides scored a 4.9, and the social gathering (lunch) scored a 4.7, indicating that the participants found the volunteers to be the best part of the experience. That is noteworthy because it indicates that the kids were getting the social support that they needed to feel part of the hunting fraternity, and it is the social side of things that makes recruiting new hunters difficult. While there are certainly small logistical hiccups that we will be correcting in future hunts, the clearest weakness of the special youth hunt program is that too few kids get to participate. Only 24 in Chester Woods and another 20 in the Minnesota Valley hunt even had the opportunity this spring. That is because we don’t have enough locations that are willing to host hunts, and not enough volunteers stepping up to organize them. If you have a location in your area that is normally closed to hunting, has a healthy population of turkeys (or deer), and could accommodate a controlled youth hunt, contact me at ryan.bronson@dnr.state.mn.us, or call me at 651-259-5191 so we can try to make things happen!
2006 Whitewater Youth HuntThe 2006 Whitewater Youth Hunt will be held October 19-22, 2006
Deer management: Iowa's regulations and producing quality deerEditor’s note: Many times in the last several years, this newsletter has printed articles calling for a later firearm deer hunt. That is the tool BWA directors feel would be most effective at improving the age structure of the buck population. However, BWA also recognizes that other factors are important to the proper management of whitetail deer and have worked with wildlife professionals from several states to gain perspective from other experts. Below, Iowa Deer Biologist Willie Suchy explains his beliefs with regard to whitetail management. Managing deer is a challenging and rewarding job. I get to talk with many interesting people and get asked many interesting questions. One that I have been asked often is why Iowa has a reputation for producing quality deer. My first response is to relate the important biological factors that affect deer in Iowa. That Iowa has a moderate climate. That the winters are not too cold, and we usually don’t have extended periods with deep snow. I also explain that the summers, although warm, are usually not too dry. Combining Iowa’s climate with some of the best soils in the world produces an abundant food source that is available to deer for most of the year. I explain that good nutrition allows deer to express their full genetic potential. The discussion often leads to questions about how to improve habitat and provide good nutrition. There are always some debates about which types of plants are best in what circumstances. I enjoy these discussions because I see that people are concerned about managing for deer and for other wildlife as well. Sometimes, however, the discussion turns to regulations, and I am asked about why the regulations are set up the way they are. Explaining the regulations is usually more difficult. Each person has different perspectives and preferences and sometimes what may seem perfectly logical to one person makes no sense whatsoever to the next. Well this article is one of those times when I have been asked to talk about deer regulations. I will try to give my perspective and apologize in advance if it makes no sense to you whatsoever. Hunting regulations in any state obviously have a big impact on deer populations since hunting is the major source of mortality. The number and types of licenses available, the number of hunters, season timing and length and hunter preferences are all important factors that affect the number and type of deer that are harvested. The number and type of deer that are harvested will impact the future population. How all these factors interact to accomplish deer management goals, while keeping as many people as possible satisfied, is the art of deer management. Iowa’s regulations, like most states, have evolved over time. Our first modern deer season was held in 1953 and lasted four days. Archers hunted during the same season as shotgun hunters until 1955 when they got their own season. The timing of the shotgun season was set so that it occurred in early December. Why? Because after the crops were harvested farmers would have more time to hunt, the deer would be more accessible, and also so it would not interfere with the pheasant season which opened on the second Saturday in November. With careful management, deer populations steadily increased. The goal of the regulations was to limit the number of does that were killed. In the 50s and 60s, this meant that the total number of licenses that were issued were restricted. Hunters sometimes only drew a tag every other year, but all of the tags that were issued were for either-sex of deer. This resulted in a high-quality herd that continued to grow. In the 70s, the regulations were changed to allow all hunters to get a tag. A lottery system was used to issue a limited number of either-sex licenses, and everyone else received a buck-only tag. The result of these regulations was that all deer hunters could enjoy hunting every year. The downside was that the buck segment of the population received heavy hunting pressure. This continued up until the mid 80s. Deer populations had grown to the point that everyone could receive an either-sex tag. Two muzzleloader seasons were added, and in the late 80s, the first antlerless-only licenses were issued. The department’s goal for the deer population changed. The new goal was to try to keep deer numbers stable. Regulations allowed hunters to take one buck with a bow and one buck with a gun, but both licenses were either-sex. Hunters that wanted more hunting opportunity were encouraged to get antlerless licenses. So how does all of this translate into Iowa’s current status as a producer of quality deer? I believe there are several factors responsible. Again, the first is Iowa’s climate and growing season. You can’t grow quality deer if they don’t have excellent nutrition. Second, I believe that we have achieved a balance between the number of deer and the number of hunters. In other words, the deer population is large enough that hunters see deer and have a reasonable chance at success when they go hunting. The challenge in the last few years has been to keep deer populations from growing too large. Fortunately, Iowa’s hunters have been very good at utilizing the extra antlerless licenses to control deer numbers. Although it may have been serendipitous, I believe the timing of the firearm’s season results in more quality deer than if our season was held during the rut. Why? Because in Iowa over 65 percent of the antlered bucks killed each year are taken after the rut. Mature deer that are harvested during the firearm seasons have had the chance to pass on their genetics. Additionally, mature bucks are undoubtedly less vulnerable to hunting pressure in December than they are during the rut. Even a small increase in survivorship will result in more mature bucks in a population over time. I also believe our short seasons are an advantage. Hunters only have a couple of days to hunt and are willing to take a doe rather than be unsuccessful. About 45 percent of the deer killed by hunters with either-sex licenses during the shotgun seasons are does. So does this mean Iowa’s regulations are the only way to achieve a high-quality deer herd? The answer is obviously NO! Regulations have to fit each situation and the tradition upon which regulations were built. The number of deer and the quality of the habitat all need to be taken into consideration to formulate good regulations. And the acceptance of the regulations by hunters and landowners will ultimately determine whether the regulations will be successful. The good news that I see is that hunters are becoming more interested in managing deer and more knowledgeable about how their actions dictate the success of the management program. They are willing to improve habitat and educate themselves on how to produce healthy deer herds and healthy habitats. Because of this, I see a bright future for producing quality deer and for the tradition of deer hunting!
—Willie Suchy
Timber harvest
Forest landowners in southeast Minnesota own land for many different reasons. Common uses of wooded areas include berry, mushroom or ginseng harvest, hiking, horseback riding, and of course, hunting. These uses, particularly hunting, may be the primary reason for ownership; or they may just be activities that can be done in a woodlot that is a part of a larger ownership. Few people own forestland for the sole purpose of generating income from timber harvest. Many landowners that I have worked with over the years have been pleasantly surprised when they got income from a sale of timber. Income from selling timber helps pay taxes, defrays the cost of the land, supports improvements on the land and in general supports the ownership of the land. Timber harvested from private woodlands support jobs in our local forest industry and provides the raw material for many of the wood products that we use. Actively managing forestland can increase the income from timber harvest as well as enhance other woodland values such as habitat and aesthetics. Management of woodlands commonly consists of some type of thinning to improve the growth rate of the remaining trees. When thinning, species selection is an important consideration. Oaks, walnut, sugar maple and black cherry are all higher-value trees for timber (as well as wildlife habitat and/or aesthetics) than are elm and box elder. Thin a woodlot by removing the undesirable elms and box elders that are crowding the more desirable species and you will increase the growth rate of the more valuable trees. Often the added sunlight that reaches the forest floor after a thinning will encourage growth of shrubs and other plants that provide cover and food for wildlife. Why do trees become more valuable after a thinning? Hardwood timber such as oak, walnut, cherry and maple that grow in the Blufflands are used for furniture, flooring, trim and other uses. The highest value lumber is free of knots, decay and other aesthetic and structural defects. That kind of wood comes from straight, large-diameter trees with few branches. Trees grown in a dense forest will grow straight and branch free on the lower stem. When trees grow too closely together, their growth rate is reduced compared to trees that have more room to grow. Removal of some trees (thinning) allows the remaining trees more room for leaves and results in large crown development. This allows the tree to grow faster with more diameter growth and a larger log when harvested. A large-crowned tree usually produces more seed than a crowded one. Large seed crops of cherry, acorns and walnuts provide an important source of food for woodland wildlife. This seed crop is a big reason that these trees have more value for wildlife habitat than elms and box elders. In an unmanaged woodlot, the trees will eventually grow large enough for saw logs which will sell for saw log prices. Some veneer logs will also be found in an unmanaged stand. A managed woodlot will usually produce more logs that have the proper size and quality to make veneer or high quality saw logs. The value of a veneer log is often two to three times the value of a saw log of the same species. By thinning a stand of timber the resulting income can be significantly greater than if not thinned. Much of our forestland is capable of producing many valuable products. High quality timber and recreation can both come from the same plot of woodland. If managed properly these resources can be produced as long as the land is here. More information is available on thinning and other woodland management activities from your local DNR Forestry office.
Planning for deer hunting success
The steps you don’t want to missby Dave Kolbert The hit looked good. I could see my arrow, now crimson red, sticking up in the chisel-plowed stubble, confirming a complete pass-through. I knew the blood trail would be short and sweet. As I reached the deer not 50 yards down the ridge, I gave thanks for the beautiful mature doe at my feet. No, she wasn’t a Pope & Young buck, but she was exactly what I’d set my sights on when I’d quietly slipped into my stand that afternoon. I’d return to hunting for a buck later in the season, but right now it was time to replenish the freezer with fresh venison. In a day I would be joining friends in deer camp to hunt the firearms season, and I wanted to enjoy that time helping them and their kids fill their tags. As I prepared to begin field-dressing the doe, my thoughts drifted back to the planning and steps that had led to this moment. While luck plays a role in all hunting success, the time you invest in planning, and the skill with which you carry out your plans, are what actually help to improve your odds of success. Locating a good area to hunt, learning how the deer use the land, determining your strategy and setting stands are, of course, critical steps to deer hunting success. Beyond those obvious activities though are some important, often overlooked, steps you may be missing. Start at the end Most of us learn best from experience, and the best time for that learning to sink in is immediately after each hunt. Regardless of how your hunt ends, spend some time debriefing with a post-mortem review of the day. Ask yourself: What went right? What went wrong? How did the deer act? Was I prepared to make the shot? Did my gear work as expected? What could I have done better or different? Be honest with yourself. If you blew the shot because you misjudged the range, or you were winded because you didn’t notice the wind shift direction, there’s no benefit to making excuses. The only way to avoid a similar mistake in the future is to see it for what it is and learn from it. Making mistakes is a part of life, and hunting is no exception, so don’t beat yourself up about it. Count mistakes as gifts; necessary lessons learned along the path to becoming an accomplished hunter. Set personal goals It’s human nature to measure our success against the goals we set. In deer hunting, your goals may range from putting venison on the table, to harvesting a mature buck, to simply enjoying nature and having fun with your hunting companions. Your goals may include these and many other challenges that you set for yourself. What’s important is that your goals are your own, and not ones you feel pressured by others or by advertising hype to take on. For example, if hunting is your primary means to relieve the pressures of a stressful job, maybe pushing yourself to take a wall-hanger every season is not the best goal for you. On the flip side, if matching your skills against those of an elusive Booner is what really gets your juices flowing, taking on the challenge of that book buck may be the perfect goal for you. Once you set your goals based on the things that have value and meaning to you, the rest of the steps to deer hunting success will become clear. Step up to the next challenge I once heard a hunting acquaintance confess that now that he’d taken two trophy bucks his interest in deer hunting had declined. It seems that he’d achieved all his deer hunting goals and couldn’t see another worth reaching for. The thrill, it seemed, was gone. Although he was an accomplished hunter, he didn’t understand that putting racks on the wall is only one measure of success. While most hunters would be happy to face such a quandary, this poor guy helped me to realize the importance of continuously looking ahead to new challenges and raising your game to the next level. Whether you’re a novice or a veteran hunter, there’s always room for improvement. The next level can be reached by further honing your deer hunting skills. Attend advanced hunter training. Or sign up for a deer camp designed to improve your sign-reading, deer patterning and stand placement skills, such as those offered by renowned bowhunting brothers, Gene and Barry Wensel. Both are great ways to up your game. Another way is to put your hunting skills to the test in a new environment. The challenge of hunting out of state, where you’ll need to plan well and adapt your skills to new terrain and deer patterns, can be a humbling, yet highly rewarding, experience. Sometimes stepping up to the next level means taking a step or two back. Perhaps it’s time to take up muzzleloading where a close, one-shot kill can bring new satisfaction. Or maybe you’ve been longing to hunt with a longbow or recurve and see if you can stalk to within that adrenalin-charged 10-yard or closer shot range. New opportunities to take deer hunting to the next level are only as limited as our imaginations and our willingness to take on new challenges. See the future One challenge we all should accept is to pass on our deer hunting heritage to the next generation. Taking the time to share your deer hunting skills with a young hunter, or someone new to hunting, is both a step to increased personal satisfaction and a contribution to the future of hunting. Planning ahead to take a doe early with my bow lets me relax during the firearms season and concentrate on mentoring and helping others, without worrying if I’ll have fresh venison for Thanksgiving. Not only does this add to my sense of success as a deer hunter, it gives me hope that deer hunting has a bright future, and confidence that when I’m too old to drag my deer out of the field alone there’ll be young deer hunting friends there to lend a helping hand. By constantly learning, improving and reaching for new deer hunting challenges, I know that I’ll still be in the game when that day comes. How about you?
The art and science of purchasing hunting landThere are at least three prime methods to acquire hunting land: inherit it, be born rich or win at least one lottery. As is the case with most of us, none of these methods ever materialize. Beginning in the years after 1990, a steady and consistent demand for hunting land began to appear. For many of us older fellows prior to that era, knowing the neighboring farmers was all we needed to afford us ample hunting opportunities. By the time we hit the year 2000, the hunting land phenomena had hit full stride. All of a sudden hunting land was a common ad in all the major newspapers, and I see no reason why this will not continue. From my viewpoint as a hunting land realtor and avid hunter, the ownership of hunting land is a luxury-type purchase. However, everyone deserves some luxuries in life, and if you are reading the Bluffland Whitetail newsletter, you would be a candidate for that type of luxury. In my earlier years, I was always looking for farm land that I could purchase and rent out as a long-term investment. Never did I take into consideration the value of the timber, presence of a river, trout stream or pond in my calculations whether to buy or not. Government programs such as CRP, CREP, and RIM etc. have enhanced the possibilities to own land and still enjoy hunting opportunities on income-producing land. I now own land that is strictly hunting land, and if I ever have to sell land, the hunting land will go last. The ownership of your own hunting land offers to the owner immeasurable amenities. When asked the question about what a person should look for when considering the purchase of hunting land, I prefer to answer that question by first exploring the type of buyer we are. If it is your first hunting farm purchase, decide if you want to own this hunting farm alone or possibly with your hunting comrades. If you want this land for yourself, complete a simple summary of your financial status and determine how much capital you have available to invest in your purchase. Once that is determined, you can estimate approximately how much of an investment you can afford. Are you comfortable buying on a contract-for-deed or obtaining a bank loan to make up the difference to complete the purchase? Or do you intend to pay cash and have no debt? Once that has been determined, then pull out your road map and draw in the area you would be satisfied driving to and would still enjoy the use of your property. This mapped area will be sketched out by yourself; consequently, you must take into consideration the type of land that will fit your type of hunting. Taking myself for an example, I love to hunt pheasant, wild turkey and deer, and not necessarily in that order of preference. Consequently, a prime tract of land for me would include a heavily wooded ridge, adjacent CRP land with food plots and or a stream and pond located on a dead-end road or a property that has very limited access. Improvements are not necessary; however, they are a plus. If any of you readers have that property please give me a call!!! Good luck in your ventures to find your own treasure, and if I can help, I will be more than happy to assist you.
Ken Vagts
2006 special youth deer hunt informationThe State of Minnesota has scheduled 9 Special Youth Deer Hunts and 1 Special Youth Deer Season for the fall of 2006. There are limited numbers of permits for the 9 Special Hunts, but there are no limits for the Northwest Minnesota Antlerless Youth Season. These regulations apply to all youth deer hunts:
Northwest Minnesota Special Youth Antlerless Season
The buck you bag ought to bear your tagEditors Note: Cross-tagging is the practice of shooting deer that will be tagged by another hunter. Some wildlife professionals have stated that cross-tagging increases significantly the harvest of young bucks and suggest that it should be limited to antlerless deer only. In doing so, the buck survival would increase, yet deer populations could be managed by harvesting does. Often, people equate this term with “party-hunting,” fearing that if such restrictions were enacted, they would not be able to hunt together with friends and family. This is not the case. If enacted properly, cross-tagging restrictions would allow hunting in parties to continue, and at the same time, increase the age structure of the buck population. Below, BWA director Kent Holen gives his opinion about cross-tagging in Minnesota. Minnesota stands practically alone in allowing cross-tagging of antlered deer. Back when deer hunting was “going up North” en masse for a few days, it was a sustainable practice. With our present all-fall season and ever-increasing interest in antlers, it is just one more factor adding up to just too much pressure on our bucks. In every five-year recording period from 1940-1984, Minnesota stood in first place in cumulative Boone & Crockett entries. In every five-year recording period since 1984, we have dropped in ranking; and in the last recording period of 2000-2004, we fell into 10th place. Is there a correlation between our decline and cross-tagging bucks? Certainly. Will eliminating cross-tagging bucks reverse our standing? Certainly not, but it will certainly help, and it is one of the changes we need to make if we’re going to get back in the game. Concurrent with, albeit incidental to, our twenty-year backslide, the quality management movement swept all across whitetail country. The products and practices that evolved, when accompanied with appropriate harvest controls, have proven to be highly effective in maximizing a buck’s potential. The Conservation Reserve Program, along with a variety of cost-share habitat improvement programs, have also seen heavy enrollment. Obviously, in Minnesota, all of the effort and expense has been pretty much for naught. We need some changes in our laws to level the playing field. In the world of fishing, slot limits followed “catch and release” partly because the conservation of some was being consumed by others. Put a hundred dollar bill in a public place with a note on it that anyone may take it, but that it will be doubled every day until someone does. How much chance will it have to grow? Put a hundred dollar bill in a public place with a note on it that anyone who takes it will be punished. You get the picture. Eliminating cross-tagging bucks would benefit hunters in every part of the state in terms of improving the age class of their antlered animals. At present, it is the only such rule change that I am aware of that has considerable support from within the DNR. So why hasn’t this long overdue change been long ago made? One of the main reasons is that both the DNR and legislators are reluctant to initiate change without clear and broad-based support from those affected — many hunters have knee-jerk reactions whenever “party hunting” and “change” come together in the same sentence. Unfortunately, semantics are, and will remain, problematic here. Cross-tagging is not a term recognized in statute; party hunting is the term recognized in statute. The DNR seldom steps away from statute terminology, so making cross-tagging bucks illegal by our definition is making party hunting for bucks illegal by theirs. What’s the difference? The answer is nothing if one interprets party hunting for bucks as merely being able to kill and tag each others’ bucks. However, the social aspects of hunting with friends and family, such as being afield with the grandkids, or doing drives together, etc. are intertwined in many a hunter’s definition of party hunting. In other words, many hunters who would never consider shooting anyone else’s buck react strongly to the thought of having their party hunting privileges impinged upon. When asked about cross-tagging though, most hunters we’ve spoken with, regardless of their definition of party hunting, favor no change in current regulations regarding antlerless deer, but favor a rule change wherein each hunter must kill the buck he/she tags and tag the buck he/she kills. This rule change would in no way jeopardize any hunter from having the most fulfilling experience possible in the pursuit of their buck. It would, in fact, in the future make that experience more fulfilling. Additionally, nowadays in most areas, management tags are so available that this change places very little restriction on a hunter’s ability to enjoy every aspect of hunting with their party from the beginning to the end of their license period regardless of whether or not they have filled their buck tag. What this rule change would do is save a lot of young bucks that are presently being shot for other party members by hunters who prefer not to “waste” their own tag on such deer. It would also save a lot of good and great bucks that are currently being killed by some very effective shooters who take multiple bucks every year using the tags of others. The all-season license is exacerbating this problem. Many in this group seem to think simultaneous co-existence on the same planet is the definition of being afield together. We all know it takes a lot of male fawns to result in one buck reaching his full potential. Eliminating the practice of cross-tagging bucks will punch a hole in the gauntlet while retaining full and equal opportunity for every hunter. It’s win-win. Rules should reflect respect for the resource just as each hunter’s behavior should. We can well afford the privilege of harvesting whichever buck meets our standards for our tag. We can ill afford either the resource loss or the message we are sending under present rule. Therefore, Bluffland Whitetails Association is committed to, and working toward, putting an end to allowing cross-tagging bucks in Minnesota.
Kent Holen
Pope & Young Club nixes proposed "hunt" tournamentCHATFIELD, MN — A recent announcement by the World Hunting Association has raised significant concerns within the Pope and Young Club. According to WHA publicity releases, a televised tournament series featuring "professional hunters" is slated for broadcast this coming fall. Competitors reportedly will seek to tranquilize deer within high-fence game farm properties. Lucrative prizes are to be awarded to individuals collecting the biggest or most captive deer during televised "hunts." Both bows and firearms will be used to deliver the tranquilizing agents. "Hunting is not a 'catch and release' proposition," said P&Y President M. R. James. "Nor is it intended to be an entertaining public spectacle. The Pope and Young Club certainly does not want its organization identified with this type of commercial endeavor, either directly or indirectly. That includes any reference to P&Y-class animals or the use of our measuring system to determine the score of captive deer. This idea flies in the face of the ethical, Fair Chase bowhunting challenges our organization embraces." Noting that the Pope and Young Club does not accept captive animals as record book entries, Executive Secretary Kevin Hisey added: "The idea that this concept is just plain wrong goes well beyond the issue of game farms and high fences. Many responsible hunters will view it as an affront to the values, principles and integrity of hunting so many hold dear." Established in 1961, the Pope and Young Club is a non-profit North American conservation and bowhunting organization dedicated to ensuring bowhunting for future generations by preserving and promoting its heritage and values. The Club also maintains the universally recognized repository for the records and statistics on North American big game animals harvested with the bow and arrow. For information on joining the Pope and Young Club, please contact: Pope and Young Club, Box 548, Chatfield, MN 55923, 507-867-4144, or visit our web site.
Building a better herdby Gordon Whittington Over the past few years, a rift has been growing wider and deeper through the heart of whitetail country. On one side stand those who believe managing the deer herd for "quality"—however you wish to define it—should be a top priority of wildlife agencies. On the opposite side are those who see forcing deer management onto people as yet another erosion of personal freedom in a world that has lost too many individual rights already. In the minds of these sportsmen, deer-management decisions should, to the greatest extent possible, be left to landowners and hunters. Stuck in the middle of this chasm, not knowing which side to climb out, are millions of the rest of us whitetail enthusiasts. Yes, we want to shoot trophy bucks, but we’re leery of getting the government any more involved in our recreation than necessary. We see good points and bad to each side's argument, and we have trouble deciding which camp’s approach is overwhelmingly “better.” What’s needed, I believe, is to take the most sensible parts of each side’s argument and come up with a long-term strategy most hunters, landowners and non-hunters can and will support. Sure, we want to see and shoot more trophy deer. But there are other players in this game. A huge herd of big, healthy deer sounds great to us, but it’s a potential risk to the livelihood of nearby farmers, as well as the safety of passing motorists and the shrubs of local homeowners. Those folks’ concerns—and votes—count just as much, individually, as those of a 100-hunt-a-year trophy fanatic. We might think we occupy the moral high ground on whitetail management, and that our concerns are more valid because we’re focused on deer all year long, but we still have to play by society’s rules. And helping to mold those rules are people who don’t measure their achievements by Boone & Crockett scores or taxidermy bills. In short, coming up with a better approach to deer management is a give-and-take process. Before we can begin it though, we must make some fundamental assumptions. First among these is the belief that a biologically sound whitetail herd is in everyone’s best interest. We don’t want so few deer that the species is threatened, and we don’t want so many that they pose a real danger to the native ecosystem, major agricultural interests or human safety. Somewhere in between lies what the average observer might call a “healthy” herd. But there’s plenty of wiggle room even in that, as any deer biologist will admit. Clinically speaking, it’s simple to say whether or not an individual animal is in good physical condition. But when talking about a population, “healthy” can have many meanings. Most obviously, it can indicate a herd free of disease or undue stress. It can mean that the total number of deer is within someone’s defined “carrying capacity” of the habitat. It can mean the herd has a tight buck:doe ratio and/or a well-distributed age structure, resulting in a fairly natural balance. Some would suggest that all herds that don’t meet the full definition just given are in some way unhealthy. But you’d have a hard time proving that to be the case. In 1991, I was among the first people in many years to hunt one of the Midwest’s most interesting whitetail herds. The deer were on unfenced power-company land bordering Clinton Lake in central Illinois. The land had been off-limits to hunting since 1977, so several generations of whitetails had lived there without any negative human impact other than the odd poacher or vehicle bumper. The total area closed to hunting was somewhere around 1,000 acres, of which perhaps 300 acres would be considered deer habitat. Yet, at the time of my visit, I believe the acreage held in excess of 500 deer. On the first few bowhunts that fall, before the animals wised up to hunting pressure, guys often reported having seen more than 100 in a few hours. You’d assume this would be a classic horror story for trophy hunters, with malnourished deer knocking on death’s door. In reality, it was anything but. Several mature bucks with live weights of around 300 pounds were shot that year, and high-scoring, massive antlers were common. Every deer I saw looked to be in great condition. Granted, this was during mid-fall, when all whitetails tend to look sleek, but there was little doubt that Clinton Lake featured both quality and quantity. A somewhat similar example of high densities and healthy deer comes to us from the sandy, highly acidic pine country of western Georgia. The site is Fort Perry Plantation, a property we studied for many years here at North American Whitetail. This 2,000-acre tract was at the time fully surrounded by a high fence, in order to provide greater confidence in our research data. And the data were fascinating, because they ran counter to what wildlife literature would suggest is true. Ultimately, the herd density reached a deer per two acres (including woods and food plots in that acreage total), and yet, the amount and quality of native browse actually improved. The deer were so locked in on the abundant food plot forage that they ate it virtually to the exclusion of native browse. As was the case in Illinois, we regularly documented bucks with live weights of near 300 pounds, and a fair number of racks that scored over 170 inches. These two examples suggest that you can stockpile a lot of deer, and some very big ones, without damaging the land. But it’s hard to maintain such “utopias” forever without predation, and in today’s world that means human hunters. Clinton Lake finally was opened up to bowhunting because local farmers were in revolt over crop damage. Fort Perry’s high fence eventually was taken down because the owner felt he had no choice but to allow some of “his” deer to spread out through the surrounding area. Now, a trophy hunter in the blufflands of Minnesota might say that the region’s harvest rate on bucks is too high, and from his perspective, he’s right. Away from the big woods, Minnesota doesn’t carry over a high percentage of its young bucks. Then again, I can say the same about most other states as well. Even so, North America as a whole is today producing more trophy bucks than ever—and in many areas, it’s happening without radical alteration of hunting regulations. Should we really push hard for a post-rut gun season, as some in southeastern Minnesota want? I question that we should. Instead of making this happen through top-down policy change, to me it’s far better done the old-fashioned way: by changing minds on the grassroots level, one at a time. And that’s where a progressive group such as BWA can really make a difference. Over time, if we could just convince enough landowners and hunters of the need to take more does and fewer bucks, there would be a remarkable change in the herd. A hunter would still have a good chance of seeing something every time afield, and the odds of seeing antlers would be improved. There would also be somewhat less deer damage, because with fewer does, there would be fewer fawns. Maintaining a high doe harvest while passing up young bucks is the most effective way to regulate the “faucet” that refills the tank, keeping total deer numbers at acceptable levels while improving buck hunting. Let’s see: less crop and ornamental damage, fewer deer-auto collisions, a possible reduction of deer-borne diseases, and yet, better trophy hunting without reducing hunter success rates. That’s an attractive outcome in which all of the stakeholders could claim victory. Teaching those around us the right way to manage whitetails and whitetail habitat isn’t an overnight process. But in many parts of North America, we’ve already observed the good that can come from a concerted effort to educate our fellow interest groups. We need look only as far as Buffalo County, Wisconsin, to see what can result when hunters and landowners take it upon themselves to focus the harvest on does and mature bucks. As these local efforts start to pay off in bigger bucks, the ripples move outward. Almost before you know it, the attitudes and behaviors of an ever-widening circle of hunters and landowners have been changed, and in a positive way. As my good friend Dr. James Kroll likes to say, it’s the deer-hunting version of “catch and release” in fishing. Let’s remember that in only a human generation, the notion of releasing a good-sized fish went from “crazy” to accepted practice by anglers all over the world. Education led to peer pressure, which led to mass change. Despite the positive impact a post-rut gun season likely would have on buck numbers and age structure in southeastern Minnesota, I worry that such a strategy could reduce public support for not just the DNR, but BWA as well. For a Midwestern state, Minnesota has a relatively low percentage of deer hunters participating in archery season. While a later gun opener undoubtedly would result in more gun hunters taking up bowhunting, many gun hunters would simply resent the perceived reduction in their traditional hunting opportunity. (This might well be the case even if gun season’s length were increased to compensate somewhat for missing the rut.) And, once an early gun season has been eliminated, should BWA or anyone else want to move the opener back to early November at some point in the future, that might prove more difficult than getting it moved later to start with. I see no clear need for a later gun hunt, because you can have good trophy opportunity without delaying gun season. Look at states such as Kentucky (two-week centerfire rifle season during the heart of the rut) and Texas (nearly two months of rifle hunting from before the rut on into the post-rut). They’re cranking out more big bucks than ever, and not just from huge, lightly hunted properties. In Kentucky, a one-buck annual limit and effective public education have made the average hunter more selective in what he or she will shoot. In Texas, where intensive deer management began decades ago, progressive landowners who protect small bucks have learned that regulating hunter behavior through “ranch rules” is just as effective as doing so through state regulation, and certainly no more divisive. Wouldn’t we be better off if we could use grassroots education and landowner influence to lead hunters toward sound harvest decisions, rather than trying to achieve similar results by infringing further on hunting opportunity? This approach eliminates the winner vs. loser scenario we would see with a drastic season change, and it’s more likely to result in hunters and landowners changing their attitudes and behavior for the right reason. They become better deer managers because they want to do the right thing, not simply because the law forces them to do so. And no matter which human activity you’re talking about, that’s how to make a change that really sticks.
Sign up for North American Whitetail University courseHow much can you learn about trophy bucks in three days? Possibly more than you ever dreamed. On September 8th, 9th and 10th, Bluffland Whitetails Association will be hosting the North American Whitetail University course to be held at the Eagle Bluff Environmental Learning Center, just outside of Lanesboro, Minnesota. This unique program lets you interact with renowned experts on whitetails; Whitetail researcher and television personality Dr. James Kroll and North American Whitetail Magazines editor-in-chief Gordon Whittington. In a relaxed classroom setting, you’ll learn from two of the world’s foremost deer authorities . . . and even head out into the field for some “hands-on” instruction. Some of the topics of discussion will include an in-depth look at food-source management, patterning whitetails, gathering management records and using cameras for management and hunting success. Dr. Kroll will also take you into a comprehensive look, based on seven years of research study of genetics in the wild, at calling bucks. This session may give you an opportunity to visit one-on-one with two of the best whitetail minds in the world. For more information about lodging, accommodations, cost, and event details or to RSVP, you can call Colin Williams at (507)864-3805 or send an email to info@blufflandwhitetails.org. If you’re serious about your deer hunting, or creating a deer hunting oasis on your farm, mark your calendars for this first event of its kind hosted in Minnesota.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Speaking of applications, die-hard hunters (or maybe not-so-smart hunters like myself) got a little sticker shock last month when we applied for our non-resident Iowa deer license. This year, Iowa came up with another way to raise revenue. They now require the non-resident applicant to purchase a second tag; an antlerless tag. However, since I am not required to apply for this out-of-state license, I guess I have little reason to complain. I will admit though, the state of Iowa provides our money's worth with some awesome deer hunting potential!
Katelyn is 12 years old, and this was the first animal she had ever taken. In fact, she is the first in her class to harvest a turkey. But Katelyn was not alone. Thirteen of the two-dozen participants in the special youth turkey hunt at Chester Woods County Park near Eyota managed to harvest their first turkeys, and a couple of kids managed to miss a few, making the youth hunt successful on several different levels.
Jim Edgar
Bluffland News / Bluffland Events / Contact Bluffland