Buck Harvest Stats

[Grasshopper]

In another thread, Stump was asking for data on buck harvest. I did a little sniffing around and here's what I came up with.

These #'s tell the % of bucks in each of 3 age classes harvested in each state. Some states do not track data like this. Some only track the % of yearling (1-1/2 year old) bucks. If the numbers don't add up to 100%, that's usually because the state lumps all deer 3yrs and up into one category. All numbers are from the 2008 season:

Minnesota
1.5 yr old: 67%
2.5 20%
3.5 10%

Iowa
No data

Illinois
1.5 yr old: 41%
2.5 no data
3.5 ND

Indiana
1.5 yr old: 40%
2.5 40%
3.5 20%

Kansas
1.5 yr old 17%
2.5 34%
3.5 49%

Kentucky
1.5 yr old 41%
2.5 38%
3.5 21%

Ohio
1.5 yr old: 50%
2.5 32%
3.5 18%

Wisconsin
1.5 yr old: 53%
2.5 ND
3.5 ND

You'll note that MN's yearling buck harvest led the Midwest. It was also tops in the NATION...

[south40]

Those are pretty sad stats for MN. Hopefully some form of change will take place for the 2010 MN deer seaon.

[10_Points or better]

Why are those sad stats for Minnesota? I realize that some feel that if you want to shoot a big buck you have to let some little ones live to get big. I have heard the same kind of mindset on fishing sites about catch and release. If a person buys a lic and shoots and harvests the deer within the law what is the problem? Believe it or not some people are completly happy to shoot a doe, fawn, or small buck and that is just fine, looking down your nose at them is wrong.

[RidgeRunner]

Believe it or not some people are completly happy to shoot a doe, fawn, or small buck and that is just fine, looking down your nose at them is wrong.

Most of us don't look down at those that shoot year and a half old bucks. I don't know anybody that looks down on people for shooting does.

The discontent is with the DNR because their management strategy has turned the year and a half old buck into the only option in most cases. Minnesota has a very low age structure in its deer herd and that is a direct result of what the DNR does. I realize that many people are happy shooting a young back but I guarantee that they would be even more excited about shooting a 3 1/2 or 4 1/2 year old. Is it out of line to want the DNR to do a better job of managing our resources?

[10_Points or better]

The problem the DNR has managing anything is that it has to make everyone happy, that simply is not possible. If you buy a lic and don't shoot a deer you blame the DNR because there arn't enough deer. If you hit 2 deer in 3 years with your car you curse the DNR because there are too many deer. I do not know how the DNR could come up with a law were a hunter can only shoot mature antlerless deer and make it stick, or even have a minimum point count or antler length?

[Stump]

Good work on digging those stats up! Interesting data.


Now if we could get those guys to stop killing what they would like to think is a cull buck, MN would be alright! I think though a common theme amongst most of those states is a gun season outside of the rut. No AR, No EAB.....still allow everyone to shoot what they want, but keep it out of the rut.

[cupper]

Why are those sad stats for Minnesota? I realize that some feel that if you want to shoot a big buck you have to let some little ones live to get big. I have heard the same kind of mindset on fishing sites about catch and release. If a person buys a lic and shoots and harvests the deer within the law what is the problem? Believe it or not some people are completly happy to shoot a doe, fawn, or small buck and that is just fine, looking down your nose at them is wrong.

In my opinion, it is not the DNR's job to make people happy. Like you said, it will never happen anyway. Their job is to manage rescources. Biology tells us that it is not healthy to have a deer herd skewed so badly towards younger bucks. I, for one, do not look down on anyone who chooses to shoot a small buck... like you said it's their choice, however, if the DNR managed the rescource differently so that a hunter had more opprotunities to shoot older and larger bucks I would be willing to bet that a lot of hunters would indeed pass up the smaller buck.

Lets use the catch and release analogy you mentioned for fishing and try to apply it to hunting. If I were fishing in a lake that had no special regulations or slot-limits on walleyes and I knew that there just weren't many fish larger than 13 inches, I'd probably keep my limit of 11-13 inchers and smaller becuase it's legal and I like to eat walleyes. The pattern of small fish in this lake continues. Now, lets say that a very similar lake 5 miles away had a slot-limit for walleyes and anything under 13 had to be released. I'd have no problem letting those same fish go because A.) its the law, and B.) Due to the slot I know that everyone else is, or should be, doing the same thing and that should allow me to catch more fish over 13 inches to eat, and even possibly a real giant that many consider a once-in-a lifetime fish.

I'd choose the lake with special regs everytime because I know I'm going to get a lot of action and have the chance at a trophy every time out. Now, turn this to hunting... I'll take changes in season structure or regs like antler restrictions because I am going to see more bucks (due to less of them being killed every year) and my chances of seeing mature bucks will increase becaue of this.


Minnesota is a challenging state to manage due to it's varying types of land so I realize that biology dictates different approaches in different areas. That being said, I would love to see the DNR make an effort to change their approach (in areas that biology allows) to deer management. I believe that people (both for and against changes) would be pleasantly surprised.

I realize that this is a very polarizing topic but this is just my opinion. I don't expect everyone to agree with me... it's fun to discuss though.

[Grasshopper]

I think though a common theme amongst most of those states is a gun season outside of the rut. No AR, No EAB.....still allow everyone to shoot what they want, but keep it out of the rut.

Yup.

This is a simple numbers game; the vast majority of deer are killed with a gun. If you want to make a significant change to the harvest, you do it through the gun season.

Stump makes a very good point, and its interesting to me that many hunters will choose a more complex regulation/season change (Antler point restrictions, etc.) over a simple one; moving the season.

[10_Points or better]

Isn't WI's season considered after the rut? and they are over 50% in that 1.5 years of age range.

[Dor]

Yup.

This is a simple numbers game; the vast majority of deer are killed with a gun. If you want to make a significant change to the harvest, you do it through the gun season.

Stump makes a very good point, and its interesting to me that many hunters will choose a more complex regulation/season change (Antler point restrictions, etc.) over a simple one; moving the season.

double yup

[RidgeRunner]

Isn't WI's season considered after the rut? and they are over 50% in that 1.5 years of age range.

You still see rutting activity during the WI gun season but it's the tail end.

The statistics show that the further the general gun season is from the rut the lower the number of 1 1/2 olds are shot and a higher percentage of older bucks are shot. I'm sure Iowa statistics would show the same if they were available.

Bottom line is that people are still shooting bucks in our neighboring states, the bucks are just older (and bigger).

[10_Points or better]

And that is the DNR's fault? Oh yeah they need to remove the temptation.

[south40]

Why are those sad stats for Minnesota? I realize that some feel that if you want to shoot a big buck you have to let some little ones live to get big. I have heard the same kind of mindset on fishing sites about catch and release. If a person buys a lic and shoots and harvests the deer within the law what is the problem? Believe it or not some people are completly happy to shoot a doe, fawn, or small buck and that is just fine, looking down your nose at them is wrong.

I am not judging anyone for shooting anything. I was just stating my opinion. I am definitely one of those people you are talking about that is extremely happy to shoot a doe (I have taken 7 in the last 4 years). Its just that I personally get more excited about big antlered bucks so when there are stats saying 72 percent of the bucks shot in MN were 1.5 yrs old I know the chances of taking an older (3.5yr old) deer are less for me, in MN, as opposed to some other states.

[Schultzy]

10 point,

Never have I knocked anyone down for shooting a young buck unless he's the dumb ass complaining that there's no big bucks around but yet he's shooting them making excuses for himself along the way. I could list so many people that do this, drives me nuts!! Mn has the genetics/genes, the land to make Mn an outstanding state to shoot big bucks. What's wrong with wanting to do that? These same hunters that shoot 1.5 year old bucks now would more then likely be taking nicer bucks If all Mn did was move the gun season back a week or 10 days. Why not try and make everyone happy Instead of just some. It's very doable, that's what pisses me off!!

Tell me which buck are you going to shoot If you've got a 150" and a 70" In front of you? What buck Is the rest of the deer hunters In the state going to shoot If presented that same scenario?

[RidgeRunner]

And that is the DNR's fault? Oh yeah they need to remove the temptation.

Of course it's the DNR's fault. They are responsible for managing our states resources, including the deer herd. It has nothing to do with temptation and everything to do with opportunity.

[10_Points or better]

Don't get me wrong I would love to see gun season moved back even 3 weeks, as a bow hunter I love the idea of having the rut not ruined by the orange army stomping all over. I really think it is because of the timing with Wisconsin. The 2 states openers for fishing are not the same weekend, on bass and pike. I don't think either state wants to lose the out of state lic fees.

[Pickert]

It looks like I need to shoot more 1.5 year old bucks to get the Kansas numbers to match up with the other ones. Look out spikes here I come!

[RageRunner]

Maybe we should close all deer hunting down from Mid-October until December 1st. If the gun hunters can't hunt the rut, then neither should the bow hunters, right? But I would be afraid that if you force the gun hunters into December that you will lose a lot of hunters and revenue, at least for the short term. The MNDNR wouldn't stand for that.

OR maybe the DNR will open up a spear-only season during the rut.

[10_Points or better]

It would be interesting to see how MN and other states stack up as far as amount of public land vs private. My thought is that on public land it's a free for all vs management plans on private hunting land. Like I have stated I work for the DNR on a seasonal basis and heard plenty of complaints vs little or no alternatives from the public. It seems that a great deer of "knowledge" the public follows is a myth.

[Dor]

It would be interesting to see how MN and other states stack up as far as amount of public land vs private. My thought is that on public land it's a free for all vs management plans on private hunting land. Like I have stated I work for the DNR on a seasonal basis and heard plenty of complaints vs little or no alternatives from the public. It seems that a great deer of "knowledge" the public follows is a myth.

Really? You haven't heard any alternatives from the public?

Down here in SE MN we have more input submitted than can be counted and everyone has provided an alternative of some sort. Progress is made, but it is very slow. Almost ALL DNR law changes follow some sort of PUBLIC comment gathering and there is very strong input from many sides in regards to deer management. Ultimately, it will be decided by the DNR, but one thing is for certain.....they have plenty of public input to sift through.