County seeks to reduce deer population

[Puckstop31]

The hunters that are hunting are going after trophy bucks for the racks. This year they can only shoot 10 point bucks & up as far a bucks go. There is bow, muzzle, & shot gun season besides. Our state is second in deer population with all the corn & bean fields for them to feast on. The coyotes kill a lot of the fawns in the spring around here but there are still a lot of deer.

What state are you in? Are you sure the "10 point only" rule is not something from a local preserve or club? Mature bucks in the midwest, generally speaking, tend to carry more antler than others.... But ONLY 10 points or more? I've seen 8 points that score much higher than some 10s....

[Bonny]

What state are you in? Are you sure the "10 point only" rule is not something from a local preserve or club? Mature bucks in the midwest, generally speaking, tend to carry more antler than others.... But ONLY 10 points or more? I've seen 8 points that score much higher than some 10s....

I heard it on a radio station in Southern Minnesota. The dogs & I have picked up the finer 8 point horns from yearling bucks & found more thicker horns of mature 8 point bucks in the early spring. It depends on the maturity of the buck. I guess in Minnesota there aren't many trophy bucks so they want them to lay off shooting the bucks so put a restriction on it for now. I don't know if it is the whole state or a county in Southeastern Minnesota? Trophy bucks bring in more hunters I guess that are interested in the racks more than anything. I know we have plenty of big mature doe in our area & there are signs of bucks on the trails during the rutt with the bark rubbed off of trees. I have seen mainly younger bucks in my area this past year. Last year a hunter got a trophy buck hunting in the back of our woods & he was from Minnesota. So it must be a big thing there. I am in Iowa the land of the corn, soybeans, & deer.

[moosmom]

Why can't they have a birth control injection, like they do with cats, that will curb the deer population.

It seems that we go through this every year with the same outcome. (Where's Sara Palin and her trusty shotgun when you need her?) I've said it before, I'll say it again...these animals were here LOOONG before we were. We need to respect that.

My Dad always taught me that nature is cruel. I never realized till now how right he was.

[Bonny]

No, Karen, You were the one who bought wolves up. Common sense & experience is what I know about wolves. You mentioned bringing wolves in to hunt the deer. It won't work period!

[Karen]

No, Karen, You were the one who bought wolves up. Common sense & experience is what I know about wolves. You mentioned bringing wolves in to hunt the deer. It won't work period!

I said - in the first post that I mentioned the wolves "That's why the best solution - were there not human beings with pets around - would be to reintroduce the grey wolves."

All the instances you talk about are problems that human being have - ranchers for example. Yes, it's livestock, not pets, but it's essentially the same thing. Remove the human beings from the equation and it would be a different story. But we know that's not going to happen, so reintroducing wolves cannot happen in most places. So humans will have to deal with the problem they created when they eliminated the wolf.

[moosmom]

so humans will have to deal with the problem they created when they eliminated the wolf

exactly!!!

[Puckstop31]

Why can't they have a birth control injection, like they do with cats, that will curb the deer population.

From what I have read on this topic.... First, it is rather expensive. Second, it would be a major task to capture, inject and release does in estrus during the time of year they go into heat. "The Rut" is high part of the deer hunting season.

It seems that we go through this every year with the same outcome. (Where's Sara Palin and her trusty shotgun when you need her?)

It is abundantly clear that the best (easiest?) way to control the deer population is proper hunting policy. For the most part, in most states that I read about and anecdotal evidence from other hunters I talk to, the huntiung laws are effective.

The problem is that there are, for various reasons, less hunters every year. Also in the mix is a misunderstanding by the general public about what is "good" for wild animals. An example is what is going on in the Philadelphia suburbs area in PA. These are Wildlife Management Areas 5C and 5D. They issued a HUGE number of antlerless deer permits and extended the archery season for antlerless deer by 2 weeks on the front and 6 weeks on teh back of the regualr season. Results? 20,000 unsold tags and the need for even more "cull" hunts in those areas. Reason? The biggest one is access to the deer. Large areas of huntable land is privately owned and the owners refuse to allow hunters to hunt "their" deer. A large portion of the people even routinely feed them.

FWIW, nice dig on SP there. Not sure how it fits here, but nice dig anyway.

I've said it before, I'll say it again...these animals were here LOOONG before we were. We need to respect that.

My Dad always taught me that nature is cruel. I never realized till now how right he was.

Indeed. I guess people need to come to terms with what, exactly, "respect" for nature means?

As for cruel... I'm not sure I understand what you mean? Are you saying hunting is cruel? Man is the apex predator and another part of the chain. I don't think nature is "cruel". Rather, it is goverend by absolute law. And not the "law" mankind thinks about.

[moosmom]

What he meant by "Nature is cruel" is the pecking order of nature, and how coyotes attack little animals for food, etc. As for hunting, while I'm not a big fan of hunting, I believe there is a BIG difference between hunting for the pleasure of KILLING little animals or just for the thrill of the kill, and hunting to put food on the table (and I mean using every single bit of the animal).

EXAMPLE: Farms that have BIG cats and animals that hunters (I want to say animal killers) pay THOUSANDS of dollars for, to hunt down and kill for a cheap thrill. To me that is NOT acceptable.

Ted Nugent is an avid hunter. HOWEVER, he uses every single bit of the animal for food. What he doesn't use he donates to local food pantries. BIG difference.

[Puckstop31]

What he meant by "Nature is cruel" is the pecking order of nature, and how coyotes attack little animals for food, etc. As for hunting, while I'm not a big fan of hunting, I believe there is a BIG difference between hunting for the pleasure of KILLING little animals or just for the thrill of the kill, and hunting to put food on the table (and I mean using every single bit of the animal).

EXAMPLE: Farms that have BIG cats and animals that hunters (I want to say animal killers) pay THOUSANDS of dollars for, to hunt down and kill for a cheap thrill. To me that is NOT acceptable.

Ted Nugent is an avid hunter. HOWEVER, he uses every single bit of the animal for food. What he doesn't use he donates to local food pantries. BIG difference.

Thank you for the explanation.

I agree that there is a big difference between hunting for meat and hunting to put a nice mount on the wall. I also agree that the ranches that offer "high fence" hunts, are appalling and not in any way a real hunt.

I'm a big advocate of only killing what you will eat. I try to only hunt game animals that I intend to consume. The exception is groundhogs.... But this is a little off topic here. LOL But what I WILL say is this... If I get a big 10 point buck on the ground next year in Illinois... Yes, I will eat it all. But that once in a lifetime deer will also become a mount for my wall. Which is something I don't normally do.


----

Hunting, to me and all the guys I run with at least, is about WAY more than the kill. Heck, I had the best hunting weekend of my life last weekend and did not kill a deer.