Should MN allow hunters to shoot 1 buck w/ a bow & 1 buck w/ a gun?
I like the idea of being able to harvest 2 bucks because it would probably get me to gun hunt again. But, i also don’t like the fact that a lot more little bucks would die and not have a chance of becoming a trophy. It’s bittersweet.
What are your thoughts??
I will side with the 1 buck for your reason. More immature/small deer would fall IMO with allowing hunters to take 2 bucks. Not all hunters would, but enough would to make an impact. That will also give that many more bucks (however many 2 bucks that would be harvested by the same person) a chance to grow another year.
So I vote against! 
My thought is why should people who do bow hunt and gun hunt get to take 2 bucks?
If I only gun hunt does that mean I can take 2 or if I only bow hunt can I take 2? Devils advocate, if I hunt in an intensive harvest area, I could then take 2 bucks and 3 does?
I am not for it but those questions came to my mind.
I will side with you too. We have a to buck rule here in Illinois and it stinks. When i go to the check staion and see what people shoot it is shocking. Qdma has been trying to educate hunters about quality deer management but our biggest enemy around Illinos is the Yuppie hunters who pay ridiculous amounts of money to lease farms near me and “kill brown and its down” mentality.
I vote against it. Let those little guys grow!!
One of the reasons I started to hunt in WI is that the law allows you to harvest two bucks (one with a bow and one with a firearm).
I believe in the intensive areas this should be considered. Or… maybe implement a “earn a buck” system in these areas that would grant you a second buck tag.
Or better yet, why not implement some type of a QDM practice that would allow hunters to shoot 2 bucks if they met some type of QDM qualifictions or standards (width outside the ears, 4 points to a side etc..).
I realize this is a very controversial subject but you wouldn’t have to participate in it if you didn’t believe in QDM. Earn a buck could also be attached to this as well where it makes sense in those intensive harvest areas.
In regard to QDM, it’s the same old problem – the buck to doe ratio is out of whack and too many little bucks don’t make it until maturity.
I am for shooting 2 bucks, but under certian circumstances in which i doubt our state would ever consider…
I believe that if someone is granted a second buck tag, it should be on a earn a buck system and should adhere to a point restriction. In my opinion, this would reward some hunters that practice QDMA the opportunity to shoot another mature buck.
This is also the reason why I have spent the majority of my time hunting in WI. Most years, both my buck tags go unfilled, but it’s a good feeling to know your season is not over if you do end up stickin a good one in early Sept..
I DISAGREE with being able to take 2 bucks in Minnesota, because of party hunting. I think we all have people out there that we know that shoot as many deer as they can and for as many people as they can 
. I also think that we need to protect the bucks more. If you need the meat, shoot a doe. We have seen a lot less deer in our woods(Park Rapids area) in the last 2 years than ever before and I believe it to be the direct cause of the multiple seasons that are now available to the area hunters. We have also seen a lot more trespassing with the added seasons. 2 years ago we saw 50+++ deer for three hunters and last year we saw 2 whole deer!! I like to see deer as well as take a shot every now and again, but our DNR is doing everything in their power to block that. That is my .02. Sorry to vent! 690reece
I guess I would still disagree with a point system. How many small immature 4×4 & 5×5 racks are there running around? They would still qualify for the point system but are far from mature. That is not a good qualification system IMO. Bette rthen what we have but not a fix. Those are the very deer I try so hard to protect and let go another year or 2, the decent 2.5 & 3.5 year olds.
Believe me, I wish we could take 2 bucks also, but I don’t think our resource and fellow hunters could handle it properly. I think it would set back MN even farther from the WI, IL and Iowa’s then we already are in the QDM area. Therefore, I rather give us a better chance/opportunity at 1 trophy deer then have everyone shoot 2. You just need to make sure when you pull the trigger, that is the deer you want. If it wasn’t why did you shoot? Just puts responsibility on the hunter. What is wrong with that? 
I would be against 2 bucks in MN. Allowing only 1 buck in MN I think is one of the best options for QDM. MN already struggles with their deer management IMO.
Shoot does they taste the same.
I would be for it but like Brad said some rules would have to apply. Some sort of QDM would be nice to see in Minnesota, just in general.
Maybe also push the gun season back alittle so its not in the rut as much. I think that might help out the little bucks so they wouldn’t get shot.
Its a really tuff subject. Their are just to many hunters with different ideas.
I know a lot of people who refuse to shoot does, and end up shooting little bucks for meat just because it has horns, they feel better. I have NO problem with ANY buck somebody chooses to harvest, but that’s your buck for the year! You want meat, shoot a doe. I agree that with party hunting, a lot of little bucks would be shot simply because they can to fill some tags that otherwise would be passed up.
I have never hunted in MN. I was just wondering how many years it has been only one buck per year? If it has been for many years why do they want to change it? Is it just to sell more tags?
First of all I think this topic was just a thought and I don’t believe it is something the DNR is looking at. Are they? 
I agree there is a lot of other things that could/should be done first before changing anything. However, too many people would and do fight these changes. Top on my list would be move rifle season out of the rut. Most Gun hunters hate this idea and have a hard time looking at the long range impact of this concept and actually it would increase their chances of harvesting a trophy in the future IMO. Look at the top 3 states of IL, WI and Iowa. All there gun seasons are later.
2) I think we need better stats first but then I would opt to have lotteries in some areas for bucks and hand out doe tags if you do not get drawn. Instead of giving out everyone in the whole state a buck tag. This would help some bucks make it another season and also give a more balanced sex ratio in certain areas. Give preference points etc, like other states do.
3) Earn a buck for certain areas could works also.
Just a few thoughts off the top of my head.
Lip,
You are right, this is just a thought and as far as i know there isn’t anything in place by the state of MN to make shooting 2 bucks a reality.
I just would like to see the state of MN have some type of restrictions in place to help hunters harvest “trophy class” bucks. And w/ our neighbors to the East (WI) allowing hunters to shoot 2 bucks per year and having what seems to be a better QDM i get frustrated at years end when i only see 2-3 trophys.
Also, I was more curious if shooting 2 bucks had a cause or effect w/ more trophy’s. But, more so, it’s probably the direct effect from hunting during the rut when the bucks of all ages are most vulnerable. There are definitely some good points that were made that could increase the odds for all hunters to harvest that “buck of a lifetime”.
I disagree with shooting two bucks in MN, in fact you may see a new law next year that will not allow party hunting for bucks in MN. In other words you can only shoot a buck with your tag, you could not use someone else tag on a buck you shoot. I like the thought behind this law the only problem I see is that this law would be difficult to enforce but even so I think it would be a step in the right direction. I do not like the idea of earn a buck for one simply reason, a once in a life time buck only comes around for a very few hunters and it would be a shame if someone had to pass up a once in a life time buck simply because he had not shot a doe yet. I also agree with 690reece that there are way too many guys out there that buy multiple licenses for people that do not hunt and use the tags for themselves, I would like to see much stiffer penalties for guys caught doing this. I have said it before and I will say it again there is only one way to effectively protect the younger bucks and manage the heard in MN and that is to move the gun season out of the prime time rut.
Im with steve on moving the gun season farther away from the rut.
I think in the area’s they have intensive harvest, make it earn a buck.
A point restriction would help but like Lip said its not going to do help much with trophy bucks.
As far as shooting two bucks, as the way our deer population is i would say no.
I believe our DNR is way behind the game on QDM. Look at the trophy’s that iowa, WI and IL have.
Lots of great ideas and debate as to whether or not some of them will work. Would it be wayyyy off base to propose a 2 or 3 year no buck under 4 points on one side? Initial reaction would be that it’s great but all of these bucks would then get blasted at 2 1/2 years old. However, by letting all (or most in the case that some yearling bucks will have 4 points on one side (lets be real, probly less than 20% of yearlings have 4 on one side))it will produce higher quality immediately. My argument would be that a 2 1/2 year old is MUCH MUCH smarter and craftier than a yearling. It would give these deer the chance to get to 3 1/2 a lot easier than our current system.
WIth that said.. What about the kids? One of my top memories as a hunter was the first buck I with a bow at 15. There could easily be a clause that anyone under 16 is exempt from this rule and no party hunting on a 16 or under tag is allowed.
The only sacrifice would be the time for the system to take place. If it doesn’t work it doesn’t work. But imagine how many more quality deer you would see the following 3 years. I’m with Gobbler, other than openening weekend this year it’s been 3 years since I’ve laid eyes on good buck while hunting. Just a few thoughts.
Moving the rifle season out of the rut – like WI has would eliminate the killing of a lot of the young, dumb bucks……and the 2 buck rule would not be a bad thing. Rifle season during the peak of the rut isn’t good, ……..but it sure is fun.
Tim
I personally like the opportunity in WI of harvesting a buck with a both bow and a gun. (If I see one..lol)
Plus I don’t think the deer population is at risk, nor are the trophy bucks diminishing b/c of a two buck tag system.
You’ll always have hunters in any state who take “lesser” bucks, but they bought tags just like everyone else….
I at first didn’t like the EAB system either, but it’s not that bad. I’ve always taken plenty of does, you just have to plan ahead and take that extra doe to get your EAB sticker for the following season. MN could make it work and I doubt your deer populations would suffer.
I don’t really like this subject, our DNR can’t even get seasons right . Plus, we have to worry about having string with us afield because we have to tie our tags to our deer.
Like the old man said years ago: “You know why they changed the license system? Because it worked.” 
I remember when you could only shoot a buck because populations were low and they did this to bring populations up letting the does breed. After the populations got to a decent point they allowed doe hunting in some counties. After that when the populations were growing nicely they allowed 1 buck and 1 doe only statewide. This was quite a few years ago, Id say around 30 or so. The deer populations kept getting better because they had to increase the doe population to get any where and now you can take a buck with shotgun or blackpowder statewide or a doe, you can also take a buck or doe with a bow. They do have a law here where you can use eigther use blackpowder and a bow or shotgun with a bow but not all three. One thing they do here is shotgun season is after the rut in november to let the deer breed without much major pressure. Even with the very high populations of deer in some counties they still don’t allow more then two bucks to be taken which is quality and buck population control. Back when they allowed one buck only, no does, they had the buck and doe populations in mind and wanted to bring the population of the herds up and they achieved it. With the doe populations that have exploded in some counties they still don’t allow more then two bucks being taken. To encourage more hunters to the area and to keep the doe populations in check they now have culling tags in most counties, but still no more then two bucks. When populations of a certain deer are down they hold off allowing many tags so theres less pressure.
Theres four things I can see that would help bring buck populations up in areas where thier heavily hunted. First is if thier small bucks let them go and take a doe, does taste better anyway then older bucks. Second is maybe hold off or issue fewer buck tags in some counties for a year or two just to show those hunters when they do start hunting again what shooting does only can do to a herd, then maybe they will be more selective. Third is put in quite a few articles in DNR magazines encourageing the shoot a doe mentality to bring up buck populations and the size of them. The DNR can put in what they have found in statistics in some lesser hunted counties in that state and what other states have achieved with this programs. Four and I see this as a major move is don’t allow rifle hunting for bucks for a year or two. Its a known fact that the buck kills are higher when useing rifles, especially with scopes, thier more accurate and reach out farther, then the kill ratios go up. The doe populations are so high in southern Iowa that they allow rifles but for does only to cull those herds. If buck numbers fell off here in Iowa I could see the DNR do something like this to bring thier numbers back up. Taking the pressure off the buck herd maybe the only way to see bigger bucks.
Quote:
I wish we could take 2 bucks also, but I don’t think our resource and fellow hunters could handle it properly.
Well Said Lip! It would be nice nice to have, but couldn’t be managed effectively…
I did some research on these topics and came across this interesting survey conducted by the MN DNR in 2001. They captured 915 surveys on MN Deer Hunters opinions and attitude towards deer management. It’s very insightful even though it’s a little old.
Here are some of the questions/answers as it relates to these topics:
Would you support or oppose a regulation protecting small antlered bucks in exchange for increase odds of shooting large antlered bucks in later years?
31% strongly approve
27% moderately approve
2% neither approve or disapprove
18% moderately oppose
18% strongly oppose
4% don’t know
Would you say you are satisfied or disatisfied with the quality of adult bucks in the area where you hunt most ofter during the 2000 season?
26% very satisfied
35% somewhat satisfied
2% neither
21% somewhat disatisfied
14% very disatisfied
3% don’t know
Would you support or oppose limiting the size of bucks that hunters may take through antler point restrictions as a way to protect younger bucks?
22% strongly approve
27% moderately approve
2% neither approve or disapprove
19% moderately oppose
28% strongly oppose
4% don’t know
Would you support or oppose opening the firearms season after the peak of the rut (mid Nov.) as a way to protect bucks?
23% strongly approve
20% moderately approve
3% neither approve or disapprove
23% moderately oppose
28% strongly oppose
3% don’t know
Would you support or oppose eliminating party hunting as a way to protect antlered bucks?
10% strongly approve
7% moderately approve
2% neither approve or disapprove
18% moderately oppose
63% strongly oppose
1% don’t know
In areas that could support additional harvest, who you support or oppose requiring hunters to shoot an anterless deer prior to shooting an adult buck?
31% strongly approve
29% moderately approve
2% neither approve or disapprove
17% moderately oppose
18% strongly oppose
4% don’t know
How likely would you be to pay an additional fee to the State to hunt in areas specifically managed for older, larger antlered bucks?
21% very likely
24% somewhat likely
50% no at all likely
5% don’t know
Tell me which one of the following best describes your deer hunting approach in MN:
46% Shoot the first legal deer that offers a good shot
27% Hunt for large antlered bucks early/shoot any legal deer later
13% Hunt for large anterled bucks during entire season
8% Shoot any antlered buck
2% Shoot only anterless deer
1% Don’t know
Those are just some of the questions. You can view the entire survey here
I carry the plastic zip ties with me to attach the tag to the deer much easier than string, they work the same way the old metal tags did. I bet there are a few of you younger guys out there that do not remember the metal tags 
Quote:
I don’t really like this subject, our DNR can’t even get seasons right
Like the old man said years ago: “You know why they changed the license system? Because it worked.”
The metal tags, with the ball on the end of them, really were a pain the arse, if you kept em in your wallet… 
Most hunters on here, have a different approach to deer hunting, than alot of the hunters afield during slug/rifle season. Alot of people are happy to take any deer, buck or doe, big or small, it’s about getting together with the gang, once a year to make memories. Allowing 2 bucks, will only hurt any kind of QDM that is being practiced in alot of areas, as more bucks will be taken, if a hunter can shoot 2 deer without having to worry about the antler height, more young bucks will be taken. Just one mans humble opinion.
big G 
Look at Iowa, a landowner can shoot 3 bucks in a year. It has nothing to do with how many bucks you can shoot, it has to do with WHEN the gun season is.
Quote:
Look at Iowa, a landowner can shoot 3 bucks in a year. It has nothing to do with how many bucks you can shoot, it has to do with WHEN the gun season is.
The original question was “Should MN allow hunters to shoot 1 buck w/ a bow & 1 buck w/ a gun?” there was nothing in the question about moving the gun season so I have to assume that he was talking about taking two bucks as the seasons are now. If that is the case then I would have to disagree with you that “It has nothing to do with how many bucks you can shoot.” If we were allowed two bucks during the current seasons as they are now it would most certainly have a negative effect on the number of young bucks taken.
Landowners can shoot anything they want on thier place. The general public has the other options. Their are areas here where they are heavy buck hunters and nicer sized bucks are fewer. Where population isn’t as dense and theres less hunting pressure theres more bucks, there are also alot of people here that are quality minded and shoot nicer bucks for the wall or they will shoot only does. I know if the DNR here thought it was a good idea to allow hunting during the rut they’d do it so I believe they know holding off until its over is the right idea.
I guess to answer your question correctly then would be it doesn’t really matter if they let you shoot 1 or 2. With party hunting in MN Most guys who would shoot 2 bucks are already doing it. With more and more hunters starting to bowhunt this will be a hot topic in the future! Myself for example gun hunt with my family and am also a bowhunter. Any buck I shoot during the gun season goes on a family members tag that is out in the field with me.
Quote:
I have said it before and I will say it again there is only one way to effectively protect the younger bucks and manage the heard in MN and that is to move the gun season out of the prime time rut.
I’ll agree moving the gun season away from the rut the day BOW SEASON CLOSES DURING THE RUT! 
90% of the “dumb bucks” gun-shot during the rut are done so within bow range.
Yea, I can hear the outcry and screams 100s of miles away! 
PS: If you think that bucks are not chasing does in Ia during their gun season, I state respectfully, that you are mistaken.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
