# Deer Tag prices



## papapete

Are they changing the prices of gun tags this year? I heard that it will be $10 for a doe tag and $35 for a buck tag. I was just wondering if that was a rumor or not.
Thanks 
:bartime:


----------



## ND_RC

Looks like it is still $20 on the GNF site.

http://www.state.nd.us/gnf/hunting/big-game.html


----------



## KEN W

Go to the legislative forum and read some of the bills.There are a couple that relate to deer tag prices.

That $20 is state law and can only be changed by the legislature not by the GNF.

One to lower all tags after the first to $10 has already been defeated.


----------



## headhunter

Deer tags SHOULD be higher to eliminate those hunters who only hunt for meat. They should only apply for does. These are the same shamefuls that throw the antlers of the buck they shot in the dumpster after season. Idiots.


----------



## NDJ

:eyeroll:

Deer tags SHOULD be higher to eliminate those hunters who hunt only for horns. These are the same shamefuls that throw the body of the buck they shot in the dumpster after the season, Idiots.


----------



## GooseBuster3

Who cares about the price,raise the price to $100 I would glady pay it!


----------



## drjongy

headhunter said:


> Deer tags SHOULD be higher to eliminate those hunters who only hunt for meat. They should only apply for does. These are the same shamefuls that throw the antlers of the buck they shot in the dumpster after season. Idiots.


What?!?!

:eyeroll:


----------



## MossyMO

Besides getting together with family for the hunt and processing with friends, I am on the hunt for the meat, horns are a bonus !!!

I don't think that makes me a bad person?


----------



## MossyMO

Also, between my wife, 2 son's and I, we like to get 4 to 8 tags a year, pending our processing plans. Raising the prices will cause us to get less tags, Which I assume would be the case for most tag applicants. Many units allready have an over abundance of deer, raising tag prices would contradict what the game & fish department has been trying to accomplish the last few years.


----------



## NDJ

my post is to point out how badly his point was made & how bad it sounds....

I'm thinking there's a frustration in a lottery draw for buck tags, when you get passed over only to see a guy take the first spike or fork that runs by...


----------



## ND_RC

HH's post is not worthy of a reply, looks like a post to just get reactions. Look at his other posts, allot end in him calling someone or something stupid or idiotic.

I don't have a bottomless check book like GB3, so raising the tag prices would just cause me not to hunt anymore. I am not setup to process my own meat, so by the time I would pay $100 for the tag, processing fees, gas, etc... it would be cheaper to just buy my meat in the grocery store.


----------



## GooseBuster3

If i had a better chance of getting a buck tag i would for sure $100. I dont have bottomless check. I just love to deer hunt that much!


----------



## DJRooster

Why change the price of a liscense? If the Game and Fish needs the money but otherwise... When we have record numbers of deer, let hunters hunt as much as they can, that is why they have hunting season. Don't try to make the job of managing the size of the horns on North Dakota deer the responsibility of the GFD, accept the responsibility on your own. If you want bigger horns start shooting the does. It is pure and simple, don't make this anymore complicated than it needs to be. It all comes back to us but we do not need to be burdened with more regulations. Regulate, but only the real issues and quite frankly we have too many deer so don't put in more regulations. I like the present system and it is working despite a few isolated instances where a few people think that they are being victimized by the system and these I also question.


----------



## Remmi_&amp;_I

GooseBuster3 said:


> If i had a better chance of getting a buck tag i would for sure $100. I dont have bottomless check. I just love to deer hunt that much!


I could also affort the $100 tag for a buck, but I know too many people that enjoy hunting as much (if not more) than I do that couldn't afford that much. I don't want hunting to turn into a rich man's game..........especailly for resident licenses! My .02


----------



## cbass

I'm with GB3 riase the price, wouldn't bother me a bit. When you take into consideration the time, miles, and cash thrown around during deer season what is another "hundo" on top of it all. I think most would agree it is a fairly small piece of the entire pie. 
Maybe that damn PETA would squirm a bit if they had to pay $100 to get our deer tags, oh yeah they don't do that. :roll:


----------



## KEN W

I agree with DJ....why price some people out of applying for a buck just to get a better chance at a draw?

Not everyone hunts for "horns"....but still want a chaqnce at a buck.


----------



## MossyMO

Here's how I perceive the idea of $100 buck tags and $20 doe tags.

A very large majority of deer hunters would purchase doe tags, my family for instance would get 8 doe tags. I personally would not spend $100 on a buck tag when I can get a doe for $20. I'm not being a tighta$$ with money, it just would not make any sense for me to.

After a few years of this, doe tags would be in heavy demand so let's raise the price of doe tags to make the demand more even between buck and doe tags.

If there was a higher demand for doe tags, there could be a shortage of doe's in a few years. Which would mean there is a shortage of deer; end result would be a shortage of bucks. The person who wants the $100 buck tags just ruined it for everyone.

If you're in favor of $100 buck tags because you think your chances are better of getting a bigger buck, hunt a different state. There are many other states known for their bigger bucks than North Dakota.

I think the game & fish department does a great job in keeping the deer population under control. They allow X number of doe and buck tags, promote sales of them with an extended season if needed and hold a fair lottery for the buck tags. Joe Hornhunter may not get his buck tag every year, but neither do I.

Raising the price of buck tags would be just another step towards making hunting for the wealthy.


----------



## Bob Kellam

Where is the $100.00 buck tag number coming from?

Here is the bill. Read it!!!

A BILL for an Act to create and enact a new subsection to section 20.1-08-04 of the North
Dakota Century Code, relating to game and fish proclamations of the governor; and to amend
and reenact subsection 3 of section 20.1-03-12 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to
big game hunting license fees.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF NORTH DAKOTA:
SECTION 1. AMENDMENT. Subsection 3 of section 20.1-03-12 of the North Dakota
Century Code is amended and reenacted as follows:
3. For a resident big game hunting license, twenty dollars, except the fee for a
licensee under age sixteen is ten dollars, except as:
a. As provided in a gubernatorial proclamation issued pursuant to section
20.1-08-04.1;
b. The fee for an antlered white-tailed deer license is forty dollars; and
c. The fee for an antlerless white-tailed deer license is ten dollars. After
September first, the director may reduce the license fee for any remaining
antlerless white-tailed deer licenses.
SECTION 2. A new subsection to section 20.1-08-04 of the North Dakota Century Code
is created and enacted as follows:
If conditions warrant, the governor in the governor's proclamation or order may
allow an individual to receive up to two antlerless white-tailed deer licenses.


----------



## KEN W

It's not in there Bob...GB3 above said he would gladly pay $100 for a buck tag if it would better his chances.


----------



## Bob Kellam

Got it!

Sorry


----------



## papapete

The thing is, in our unit, they get rid of all the buck and doe tags every year the way it is. It's not like they have tags sitting there not being sold. The game and fish are meeting their objectives the way it is. I really don't think that money is an issue for them. I know that a couple years ago they had nine million in the bank, so i don't think they're hurting there. I personaly think they should leave it the way it is.


----------



## zogman

gee whisss, shuckie darn, why not say it!!!!!! OKAY I will :eyeroll:

I'd pay $300 every other year just to have a mulie buck tag in the badlands :withstupid:

Last time I went there the wife had a new dishwasher installed to the tune of about $600 as I remember.  The tag is the cheapest part of the hunt.


----------



## zogman

The tag is the cheapest part on the hunt. Agree or disagree?????????


----------



## Bob Kellam

Agreed!

Less than a tank of gas!!


----------



## Remmi_&amp;_I

I just don't want to see people priced out. There are many, many people that would struggle to pay $100, let alone $300, for a buck tag. I agree that the tag cost could go up a few bucks, but if we jack it up so high that some cannot afford it...........then we are no better than the landowners in the SW that charge $200/day to hunt on their land. I just want to make sure anyone in ND that wants to hunt has an opportunity because they will be the ones helping protect the heritage for future generations.


----------



## DJRooster

It should be a twenty dollar fine for not shooting a doe if you have a doe tag! Just kidding but somehow we need to thin the herd...... maybe!!!


----------



## buckseye

We read all this rhetoric about getting our youth into the field hunting with us, but some are considering making it more expensive. I guess I just don't get it!!! 8)


----------



## KEN W

If the GNF needs more money to do their job....raise the cost of a license.

But not just to get a better chance to draw a buck tag.


----------



## swift

This site is becoming so Hypocritical. In one breath many talk of the need to recruit youngsters into the sport. Then some egotistical armchair biologists decide we don't need a youth season and we should charge so much that the average kid in the family can't get a buck tag. Maybe yoiu can afford a a hundred dollars for a buck tag but throw three kids into the mix and see if yoiu can come up with $400. Get a grip people for 3 years I've been reading the rants from Headhunter about how this should change and how that should change with the outcome always benefitting him. Just once I'd like to hear him come up with an idea to benefit all the sportsmen and women in the state without taking away from others.


----------



## jdpete75

swift said:


> Get a grip people for 3 years I've been reading the rants from Headhunter about how this should change and how that should change with the outcome always benefitting him. .


Im with ya on that swift. We actually had a pool going at work for a while on when he would make his next ludicris post on Fishingbuddy :roll: . He needs to change his handle to whineandrantmaster.

IMO the idea of pricing certain people out of the market for a buck tag is dumbest idea so far on this thread. Does nobody but me remember your college days, or the first few years you were married. Would've priced me out of the market back then.


----------



## taddy1340

> This site is becoming so Hypocritical


I don't think that is a fair statement. Are some individuals hyprocritical?...Definitely. However, there is no reason to brand the site as such.

tad


----------



## dakotashooter2

MossyMO is the closest to the G&F objective. The thought is that by increasing the buck tag to $40 and reducing doe tags to $10 those hunters who abuse the system and send in for buck tags for themselves, the wife, 10 kids and grandpa and grandma in the home won't be able to afford it and will be more likely to send in for the cheaper do tags thereby making more buck tags available. If one fee changes but the other doesn't the system doesn't work. I for one think there is some merit to the idea. $40 for one or two buck tags isn't going to kill anyone and makes those $10 doe tags much more attractive. Though I would pay it $100 is a bit out of line and would be tough on some.


----------



## buckseye

DS2 wrote



> MossyMO is the closest to the G&F objective.


When did this become a Game and Fish objective??? :roll:

Headhunter is no worse than anybody on this site, he just isn't afraid to say what's on his mind whether anybody likes it or not. I can relate to that!!! 8)


----------



## swift

your right it is not the site or everyone on it. Only the same few that always preach for themselves. Whether it's I deserve a buck tag and poor people don't, or don't drive down section lines because it might scare away MY buck. Or the game and fish don't manage the herd to my liking so it must be changed. If everyone wants trophy bucks at any price go to Saskatchewan or Montana or Kansas and buy the deer of your dreams. Just leave us real sportsmen that are happy with the deer we shoot alone. Go ahead and make ND into a trophy state like it is for pheasant and waterfowl, maybe we can have the same outcome nowhere to go and you can add a $500 trespass fee to your $100 license fee.


----------



## GooseBuster3

And the guys who drive section lines and roads all day long shouldnt get a deer tag. The state doesnt need morons like that hunting!!
All that im saying is price wont matter. And nothing will change my view on this.


----------



## DJRooster

It creates lots of discussion and I always enjoy everyones ideas and opinions. Keep those opinions coming. Just my opinion!!


----------



## Remmi_&amp;_I

Hopefully the trend of applying for buck tags for wives is going to slow down soon. There doesn't seem to be that many females enrolling in hunter's safety and the people that were grandfathered in are getting older now.

I know this is going to open up a can of worms, but I really think everyone that hunts should be required to take hunters safety. My dad took it with me and enjoyed it. I know some people have "hunted" for 4-50 years, but most of the "bad" hunters that I see are the older ones. Generally when I see a guy driving section lines for deer hunting, he is 50 y/o or more.


----------



## taddy1340

Remmi,

They're going to kill you for that statement, but I tend to agree. Although it is fair to say, bad habits exist in all groups. This should create some good discussion!


----------



## DJRooster

This is one of my biggest pet peeves about our lottery system. Too many husbands (or boyfriends) are sending in for buck tags for their wives and their wives are not even hunters. Difficult enforcement dilema. In my humble opinion the deer season is the season where I see the most illegal activity. I'm not sure why but it brings out the worst conduct in people.


----------



## MossyMO

I agree, horns seem to raise the testosterone level and substantially lower the IQ. But I guess that's par for rut season !!!


----------



## djleye

But, I must respectfully disagree. Certainly there are some "morons" that drive section lines but there are also a lot of people that drive section lines that cannot walk due to age or health and they have every right to continue to hunt!!!


----------



## Shooter

Deer have ANTLERS, not horns


----------



## headhunter

If you have to pay more for your buck tag, you will have a little more self control when its time to "fill your tag"......Any questions? And thats "selfish"....or a "crazy idea"?? or "whining".....I dont think so . I love the $100 tag idea. FORCED QDM is what it is...... ya gotta love that. Shoot a good one (and pay for it) or shoot a doe for meat if your a tightass. Lets pass a bill like this.

Oh, I got a heartfelt chuckle out of you fellas that were thinking I'm out of whack when it comes to my QDM religion....especially the "we had a pool going at work" one......LOL, I'm going to have to start getting "extreme" just to keep it interesting for you. Jeezzz Hope you guys don't think I'm the only fish in the sea that thinks the way I do. Pretty soon we will get a law past that fines you $1000 per inch if the buck doesnt at least gross 100 inches. I would vote for that too!! WRITEM UP :wink:


----------



## Dan Bueide

> ......Any questions?


Yes. I think it will be just the opposite. At $30-$40 per tag, they're all still going to go in the first two draws anyway. Now if I've paid more for a tag, am I more or less willing to let it go unfilled, sometimes year after year.

You pay $5 for a concert ticket and aren't feeling red hot, you might skip. Pay $50 for that ticket and you'll probably make sure you use it, even if you feel a little off.

Someone (Smalls, I think) said it's a bad idea to value these animal differently. I agree - seems like a sell out to the whole pay-horn deal. And the day will come again when a doe draw may be harder than a buck draw. What then, reverse the prices?

If we're trying to get doe tags issued and does harvested without a huge fiscal implication, it's as simple as giving G&F the right to issue them at any rate they deem proper, say $5, after a certain date, say 10/1. Want to get your extra tags for a particular unit when you know they'll be available, then buy 'em before the blue light starts flashing. Want to take your chances on a cheap doe tag, then wait and see what's left in the bargain aisle.

The tail is wagging the dog on this bill.....


----------



## zogman

Dan,

First of all I value you input and judgement. HOWEVER deer tags to concert ticket with this bunch is quite a strech.


> it's a bad idea to value these animal differently.


I disagree you waterfowl hunters never pass up an 18# Canadanian but barely turn your head at a baby goose.

Its that way in real life. I just got back from an attorneys office that charges over $150/hr. It was a good buy. I have met other attorneys whose advice I wouldn't take if they paid me.

I started this with my $300 mulie buck tag and I'll stick with it. The main reason is a large amount of public land.

I think I'll be in class on the 24th in Fargo


----------



## Remmi_&amp;_I

Dan Bueide said:


> You pay $5 for a concert ticket and aren't feeling red hot, you might skip. Pay $50 for that ticket and you'll probably make sure you use it, even if you feel a little off.


I don't know if I 100% agree with you on this. For me, it is a time issue. I pay for my tag months before the season rolls around so it is an "out of sight out of mind issue" with the money.

Another issue at hand is how many tags get filled by other hunters anyways. I used to hunt with the family of an ex-gf of mine. We would have 4 hunters in the field, but their were always deer harvested for other hunters. One year we had 4 doe tags and the first two deer shot were nice bucks! They simply used their cell phone and called people that were in town to drive out (55 miles) and tag the deer! It was such a farse! They would show up in tennis shoes to tag the deer :eyeroll:

It drove me nuts, but they had me by the nuts. I sure wasn't going to turn in my gf's family members


----------



## Dan Bueide

> First of all I value you input and judgement. HOWEVER deer tags to concert ticket with this bunch is quite a strech.


Concert ticket, plane fare, pick whatever pre-paid, non-refundable, fixed, sunk cost you like. Point is, I think human nature is such that the larger the invsetment into something, the greater the desire to see some ROI, and I think higher buck tags will lead to a higher buck harvest rates, even if slight, which will, in turn, lead to a lower number of available tags the following year.



> I disagree you waterfowl hunters never pass up an 18# Canadanian but barely turn your head at a baby goose


Huh? A goose is a goose is a goose......And critters ain't "real life". They're part of the public trust like water and air. If they were like "real life", the commerce clause and all of its commercial implications would apply to them, and we all know that's not true, right?

Remmi, as for the party hunting deal you describe, if the guys who never leave the cafe don't choose buck tags because they cost more money, the tags willl still all go in the first two draws to others who will.


----------



## Remmi_&amp;_I

taddy1340 said:


> Remmi,
> 
> They're going to kill you for that statement, but I tend to agree. Although it is fair to say, bad habits exist in all groups. This should create some good discussion!


I wasn't knocking anyone, just making an observation. We were sitting in the Butte bar this season and sat at a table with a couple of guys (60 y/o or so) and they shot a nice buck . The guy even told us that the shot left a dent in his hood because the angle he had is rifle resting (on the hood) was about an inch off the hood! :eyeroll:


----------



## smalls

First of all, tangent...some of us take a whole lot more pride in shooting a 3-bird limit of 4 lb. lessors than a 5-bird limit of big guys. There something about those little bastards that drive me nuts..

The real issue with all of this is that G&F feels that the ND deer herd needs to be smaller. Personally, I think that we may have to take a step back and ask ourselves if we're touching the ceiling of possible harvest in the state under the current system. Even more cheap doe tags won't open up access to quality land, which seems to be the limiting factor on harvest in several of the "problem" units. Raising buck tag prices will not impact harvest, it simply will not. I sincerely hope that one of these years we have a rough winter. As much as I'd like to have my hand in eradicating as many deer as possible, I don't have the time to make an appreciable effect when half the does are dropping triplets on the ground in the spring. Now with the winter we're currently having, little snow and most unharvest corn our state has ever seen, I suspect that the birth rates will be off the charts.

So what will we accomplish with $100 buck tags? Why not $200? Many of you are willing to pay "some" price, but at the same time nearly every single one of you could be priced out of the game. How about $1000 muley buck tags? To me this issue runs parallel to land leasing issues and the trend that hunting and fishing is becoming a sport of the aristocracy.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg

smalls said:


> Even more cheap doe tags won't open up access to quality land, which seems to be the limiting factor on harvest in several of the "problem" units.


You hit her on the head Smalls!

If they want to thin a pile of does out, why don't they offer does only for a season?? Could you imagine what the quality of the herd would be, not to mention the bucks the following season!! Plus it would take the ball out of the g/o court.
Do this every two or three years depending on the herd and weather conditions. I think access wouldn't be as big an issue if they knew you were going to shoot skinheads only.

Just a thought.


----------



## swift

I agree with Dan if someone pays more for a buck tag they will fill that buck tag with something. I wish everyone would quit placing such an emphasis on antler size. All of you guys that want an expensive trophy tag they are already available. You can get one in Kansas, Iowa, Montana the list goes on. Keep the price of tags affordable for the general public, manage the herd for the general public. A true trophy hunter will seek out a specific animal in an area.


----------



## swift

The thing that makes HH seem selfish is his rants have the same song Other people have to change there ways so he can have bigger bucks. We on the otherhand say keep it the way it is and if you want to trophy hunt go for it. If you want to shoot a spike every year great just get out there and enjoy the outdoors and the animals God put there for us. Don't infringe on other peoples ability to enjoy the same things that you are looking for. We are all in the same book if not on the same page.


----------



## defendthehunt

In my opinion, in the end it comes down to how can we increase the percentage of does shot vs. bucks? Simple answer....By decreasing the number of small bucks killed. OR, as it is sometimes referred to - quality deer management. I know this is a touchy issue with some people, but it not only means bigger bucks, it means fewer does.

If hunters could no longer shoot that fork horn or small 3x3 walking past, many more of them would be apt to shoot a doe so as to 'fill' their tag and bring home venison. The vast majority of hunters are simply 'meat' hunters anyway - they know they have very little chance to shoot a BIG deer and are just out hunting for the family, friends and occasional deer. So why would they rather shoot a small buck than a doe? Because that is they way most of us were programmed, myself included, to hunt as we grew up. Shoot something with a set of antlers, no matter how big, and save the does for breeding. Well, times have changed and we need to do the same.

In addition, a lot of hunters are one weekend hunters. They have 2 or maybe 3 days a season that they can get out to deer hunt. If you eliminate the taking of small bucks, more and more of the hunters would take does so as to go home with meat in the freezer. I was a one weekend hunter for years, and for many years I too shot small bucks to get meat in the freezer, but still shoot something with antlers. About 5 years ago, when I moved to Rapid City SD, a few of the locals educated me about the problems with this practice (as the Black Hills were just changed over to a minimum buck size of 4x4 at that time) and I have shot a lot more does in the past 5 years and been a supporter of QDM since.

QDM means more does taken and bigger bucks taken - a win for every deer hunter. You dont' have to increase tag prices, just 'steer' people to shooting the right deer.


----------



## stevepike

I think it would be great if they closed the season to bucks every other year. And you would only be eligible for a buck tag if you had filled your doe tag the year before. This would allow for bigger bucks and make the guys who are big QDM proponents help with the management (instead of letting the "meat" hunters do it).

Too many people preach shoot more and more does but do not shoot any themselves. If you are only after the rack, donate the meat to a charity or friend.


----------



## Bobm

QDM is expanding here in Georgia and most of the deer hunters like it although it hasn't had any noticeable effect on the number of does shot. I think that its not a apples to apples comparison to ND though, we are allowed two bucks and in many counties one can be smaller than QDM regs allow the other has to be 4 points on a side or larger. It has resulted in bigger bucks being taken and I think most deer hunters hope to shoot a trophy buck at least once.
Maybe they should have a earn a buck system where unless you kill a doe you cannot take a big buck, that way many more hunters would cull some does. There could be a stamp at the registration station that was placed on the hunters license and an ear cut off to prove he culled a doe.

Deer herds are really out of balance everywhere and the pursuit of horns has created this mess, we hunters have a responsibility to help with the management.


----------



## taddy1340

Bobm,

Quick note on earn-a-buck. They instituted this in my home state of WI. It causes people to adopt the philosophy, It's brown, it's down. A LOT of buck fawns are shot each year under this practice because hunters want that buck tag. Additionally, hunters began registering road kill as their anterless. WI now paints all road kill flourescent orange so hunters don't use them as their earn-a-buck. :eyeroll: Some groups of hunters even would register the same deer 4, 5, 10 times just to get the buck tag. uke:

WI hunters have found this system very poor at best. I know it is *their *responsiblilty to adhere to the rules, but overall it caused a lot of poor, unethical hunting styles.

I don't know what the answer is, I just wanted to share some experience.


----------



## Bobm

My home state is also Wisconsin and I have to say that gun deer hunters in that state are the most unethical hunters as a group I have ever experienced ( i've hunted there every season since 1964). Cutting off the ear will prevent multiple hunters from using them and the small bucks issue is unavoidable but I don't see anything better.



> WI hunters have found this system very poor at best. I know it is their responsiblilty to adhere to the rules, but overall it caused a lot of poor, unethical hunting styles.


The law didn't cause unethical behavior, the lack of ethics gun deer hunters in Wis exhibit is the problem. They have no regard for the laws.

2 years ago I told my friends I would not participate in the WI gun deer hunt anymore I don't want to be associated with waht goes on during it, and anyone thats familiar with it knows what I mean.


----------



## buckseye

If mother nature wasn't so harsh here up north we could play all kinds of games with the wildlife. But as it is we can make all the rules we want and if we have one real bad winter it's all for naught.

Talk to a real game biologist sometime and they will tell you that a great percentage of our breeding size bucks die every year of natural causes, They just get to run down from breeding and can't recover enough body fat to get through the rest of winter, unless it is an unusualy warm one like this year.

But it is fun to think and talk about big bucks!!8)


----------



## taddy1340

Bobm,

You are correct, the laws didn't cause the unethical styles, that is an individual thing. However, the law and constant changing of hunting zones and new BS drive the hunters crazy. The DNR continues to say there are so many deer and earn-a-buck is needed and T-zone, and blah, blah, blah. But talk to the residents, they don't see near the deer they used to, including myself. I would say that it all has snowballed and the hunters are rebelling, which it the WRONG way to handle the situation. I am not justifying their actions, but offering my opinion on why some of it occurs.

*Bobm said "The law didn't cause unethical behavior, the lack of ethics gun deer hunters in Wis exhibit is the problem. They have no regard for the laws."*

You are painting the state of WI with a pretty broad brush. My lone experiences in my short time in GA were racist cops toward whites, murder, high crime rates, Billy-Bobs, etc. Yet, I won't say the whole state is like that because I know better than to do that. Every area, state, group, has their bad apples. You can't label us all the same.

Lastly, instead of just quitting hunting WI, did you ever try to institute change in your fellow hunters? I know I have, and a lot of them are coming around. I see the same things as you did, shooting off the road, taking pot shots at deer beyond range, etc. I don't think giving up on trying to help change the way is the appropriate way. I would like to see more people doing constructive things to help better hunter ethics rather than complaining about it....

tad


----------



## Bobm

Tad I agree with most of your post and I know there are good lawabiding people in Wisconsin, most of my relatives live there. That said, if you've been gun deer hunting in Wisconsin very long you know what I'm talking about so I wont beat it to death. The deer populations are very high in areas with limited access and the private land owners won't cooperate with the DNR( which has ticked off all the residents of Wis with its heavy handed overbearing ways on many issues not just hunting) so the overpopulation situation continues to degrade while public land areas are overshot in some spots because of the growing lack of accessible land. The quality of the hunt and many( of course not all)hunters is poor. Bow hunting is much better but I think it attracts a higher caliber level of ethics by its very nature. People looking for a challenge not a shortcut although it has some bad apples as well. 
Deer were a much rarer sight in most of Wisconsin especially southern Wisconsin in the 60's but the quality of the hunt was better, largely due to greater access I guess. As for trying to change my fellow hunters I've given up hope, its like pissing in the ocean and trying to turn it yellow, gun deer hunters represent the worst of our sport ( again I'm generalizing) but everyone knows the abuses and unethical stuff that goes on, I never could understand why some people will go to any length to get "their deer".


----------



## taddy1340

> As for trying to change my fellow hunters I've given up hope, its like pissing in the ocean and trying to turn it yellow


Bob,

Thanks for the laugh. :lol: I hadn't heard that one. I needed it. I have been with my 6-wk old daughter all day...a little stressing.

I have to say I agree 100% with your most recent post. I grew up learning and doing many of the same things you are talking about. I look back now and do see how unethical it was, but I've changed!  Can you believe what land is going for there now? My brother and I own 50 acres in Manitowoc County and got a steal at $1400/acre. Most land ranges from $2000-$3500 an acre! From what I hear and read, the western to central part of the state is going commercial...big time! uke: There are also a lot of out-of-staters moving in. I couldn't believe how many Illinois plates I saw on my way up to Crivitz. I am not blaming, just saying they are contributing to the increasing land prices and commercialization of hunting.

I remember when my family could walk for miles w/out coming across posted signs...no longer. Every 40 acre parcel is posted up tight. I have to admit ours is posted now too, because there is nowhere else to hunt. I don't like what I see in the future for WI outdoors. That is why I strongly agree with what the resident hunters of ND are doing. WI hunters liked to *****, but not many took a stand. Unfortunately, it may only get uglier.

I still can't believe they have to paint the deer orange, I saw this for the first time on my way west on 29 coming up here...unbelievable what people will do. There is blame to be spread in all directions.

.tad


----------



## Burly1

4CurlRedleg, in his Friday post, included a statement about taking the ball out of the G/O's court. In my opinion, if the G&F wants to make some more money from license fees, the 5 tags apiece that the G/O's are able to purchase should cost them at least $1000 each. I don't think that an increase would hurt the G/O's business at all, and would be a great source of additional income for the state.
And Headhunter, keep dreaming and keep your own standards high. I know that the guys who only shoot the big bucks are never going to change. But the same goes for those who shoot does and smaller bucks, it's their right, and you're not going to change that either. As an earlier poster wrote, one really bad winter is all it would take to crash the deer population. He speaks the truth. Then, maybe you'll get the 1/1 ratio you're looking for. If you are really that serious about QDM, get together with some like-minded fellows, tie up a big block of land and git 'er done! Hell, that's what the G/O's are doing all over the state. If you're that sold on the idea, register as a lobbyist and spend some time convincing our representatives, to achieve your goal. Or maybe you could run for the legislature and get a QDM bill piggybacked onto a bill supporting ethanol. But keep writing and voicing your opinion. There are no bad points of view and if they didn't differ, it wouldn't be very interesting. Would it? I really wish though, that we could all carry on a (hopefully) productive discourse without resorting to name calling, as some do. Burl


----------



## papapete

It sounds like prices were set at $35 for a buck tag and $10 for a doe. It will be interesting to se how this will work.


----------



## KEN W

That's just an amendment passed to change it from $40 to $35 ....the bill still has to be voted on.Most amendments are passed on a voice vote.

My guess...this bill won't make it....to much of an increase.


----------



## papapete

My bad. I caught the tail end of Doug Lier's show on Saturday. They were talking about this. I thought that it was a done deal.
:bartime:


----------



## bretts

Doesn't matter the price still gonna apply no matter what, and another thing what's with people saying deer have horns, cows have horns deer have antlers, sound like texans on here


----------



## Fallguy

> and another thing what's with people saying deer have horns, cows have horns deer have antlers, sound like texans on here


Bretts,

Not everybody can pass 10th grade Biology. I have a few every year that don't make it through!


----------



## headhunter

I wish that bill would pass.....darnit...... Dan buide said he thought higher tags would make the opposite happen, "better kill anything just to get something for my money"......Well I understand that way of looking at it. That makes total sense. But, I think the reverse hopefully would happen. People who don't hunt mature bucks would simply quit applying for buck tags.....Sure some guys would still smoke a young buck, but if your willing to fork out $100 a crack just to shoot a buck.....are you REALLY willing to write the G/F a $100 check and then "settle" for a 12" 3x3??? I don't think so. Than you should not have applied then right? Kill a doe then right? In the long run dink buck shooters would be the "minority"in the lottery. At $100 per tag, you better be at least a little serious about your Whitetail hunting...Am I right???!!!.

How about this one. Reserve HALF of the usual "antlered" tags alloted and continue these tags in the general lottery for $25.00 And along with the possibility of drawing a buck, you would get a FREE Doe tag with the buck tag! ....OK, are you with me?....Then take the other half of the antlered tags and Put those tags in a seperate lottery.... for $100 The second lottery would be the "trophy lottery" With less competition for buck tags. I know what your gonna say,

"there would be just as much competition for buck tags on this system , you 'd have no better chance then you do now, it would just cost us more"

I don't thinks so. Look how many "normal"/weekend/social hunters (not trophy hunters) who would REALLY like to shoot something, at least for the freezer, but wouldn't hesitate to shoot Harvey Wallhanger if he showed himself. (who wouldn't) These folks would love this system. Less chance for a buck tag but double bonus if they draw something. That free doe tag would sweeten the pot, and it would be pretty cheap hunting. Not a bad deal. On the other half of the lottery, Trophy guys would have better odds , because I'll bet OVER half of applicants would be for the buck/doe combo. So aren't the odds better for the "hardcore" trophy buck hunters? Of course we would still have 2nd drawings for all doe tags not issued, and this system wouldn't be applied to Mule deer permits in the Western half. There just isn't enough buck tags to go around there in the first place.

The G/F woudn't be out any money, they'd make 25% More, which they could apply towards rebuilding habitat and PLOTS programs etc. Win/Win


----------



## headhunter

So we would have 3 first choice options for hunting licenses. They would look something like this:

UNIT A7

Any Antlerless $20.00 (2500 available)

Buck/Doe Combo $25.00 (800 available)

Buck Only $100.00 (800 available

Total permits available for 2005

3300 doe
1600 buck


----------



## buckseye

What do you propose for bowhunting tag prices??

I think alot of people will say enough is enough just like when they made us switch to steel shot. Sure you'll have hunters but a heck of alot less of them, I don't think I would spend a penny extra to get a doe where I will search the whole season for a mature buck. Buying gas and food and stuff for 2 weeks instead of a half day. 8)

Look at what happened to resident waterfowl hunter numbers when steel shot became the law, over half quit. Ever since we have had just as many or more NR hunters to make up the difference, is this what you want?? 

I think trophy hunting is a personal choice and it should not be forced on people who just want to shoot a buck. Goto a taxidermist sometime you will see not all trophy deer are giants, some are a kids first deer and others are somebody's personal best. Lets try to let people have what we had in opportunity. 8)

It would create a poaching nightmare with groups of people sharing a buck tag and who knows what other ways this could get bent outa shape.


----------



## KEN W

Bucks....I agree...leave it alone.It's a personal choice.Most people just want to shoot a buck.If a big one comes along....great.But they are happy none-the-less.


----------



## Burly1

Bucks, A lot of good points. I think you've expressed the heart of the matter very well. Personal choice. Kids. That covers it. Burl


----------



## headhunter

yeh.


----------



## papapete

Man I wish you would shut-up about the $100 buck tags. It's a dumb idea, and it's not going to happen. I'll echo you Buckseye. Great points!
:bartime:


----------



## stevepike

Just because you spend $100 on a buck tag will not make you want to shoot a bigger buck. I agree with Dan, I think if someone does pay $40 or $100 when they have paid $20 "forever" they will be more apt to fill the tag with what they can.

The only thing a system like outlined above will do will give those willing to pay more for a buck tag (or those with more disposable income) a better chance at drawing a buck tag. I don't see it getting any of your stated desired results (except HH gets better odds at a buck tag).


----------



## headhunter

:lost:


----------



## stevepike

Exactly, a very childish recommendation (and response as well).

Anything so HH can get a better chance at HIS buck tag...


----------



## headhunter

Some QDM facts 
David Morris

The most damaging impact hunting pressure has on trophy hunting is seen in the buck age structure, which is simply the distribution of bucks thoughout the various age classes. High hunting pressure reduces the number of bucks reaching maturity, thus lowering big buck prospects. Light hunting pressure assures plenty of mature bucks, greatly enhanceing the trophy outlook of course. As we define 'trophy', a buck can't be a trophy unless he's mature and a buck can't reach maturity if he's killed at 1 1/2 or 2 1/2, (incidently, ND's average buck is 2.5 or less when killed, 90% is the overall percentage) as is the case over much of the whitetails range. Age IS, in fact, the most limiting factor in trophy production across the country, and hunting pressure/ number of young bucks killed, more than anything else,will determine how many bucks survive to maturity.

It doesn't take a brain surgeon to see why trophy hunting is better in populations with tight buck:doe ratios. Not only is the number of bucks higher at lower ratios, but a positive side benefit is a core competitive RUT, the desire of every buck hunter. More bucks and greater rutting competition, thats a good start to a hold'm and grin photo

----Exert from David Morris' book, "advanced stategies for trophy whitetails"


----------



## buckseye

TROPHY TROPHY TROPHY..Why do people want ND to be a trophy hunters state???


----------



## headhunter

buckseye, A well managed herd just "by chance" results in more trophy's....thats all. If you have a lot of nice bucks, but no "too many deer".....you have a good, healthy herd. If you have too many deer, but finding a "big Un" is a real feat, then your people in charge of tag numbers need to be fired.


----------



## headhunter

Another from David Morris........

In Heavily Hunted areas, mature bucks are outright rare, as would expect when a whopping 65 to 95 percent of the antlered bucks are shot each year. The few mature bucks that do make it are nearly all 3 1/2's. A 5 1/2 or older is a real novelty. Yearling bucks make up the great majority of the harvest The buck:doe ratio heavily favors does, and antlered bucks of any size are hard to pass up. Hunter competition is keen, and it is not easy for a hunter to distance himself from the presence or evidence of other hunters. Most natural deer activity is at night or very early or late in the day. Forced movement accounts for much of the harvest. The rut is a sad affair. Rutting activity and sign are spotty and inconsisitent. Trophy hunting in heavily pressured areas is a most difficult game and pretty much limited to hunting a known buck of the most inaccesible areas. (sound familiar to any of you?)


----------



## Bob Kellam

50559.0200 FIRST ENGROSSMENT
Fifty-ninth
Legislative Assembly ENGROSSED HOUSE BILL NO. 1317
of North Dakota
Introduced by
Representatives Nelson, Hanson, Porter
Senators Erbele, O'Connell
A BILL for an Act to amend and reenact subsection 3 of section 20.1-03-12 of the North Dakota
Century Code, relating to big game hunting license fees.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF NORTH DAKOTA:
SECTION 1. AMENDMENT. Subsection 3 of section 20.1-03-12 of the North Dakota
Century Code is amended and reenacted as follows:
3. For a resident big game hunting license, twenty dollars, except the fee for a
licensee under age sixteen is ten dollars, except as:
a. As provided in a gubernatorial proclamation issued pursuant to section
20.1-08-04.1;
b. The fee for an antlered deer license is thirty-five dollars; and
c. The fee for an antlerless deer license is ten dollars. After September first, the
director may reduce the license fee for any remaining antlerless deer
licenses.

The bill Passed

SECOND READING OF HOUSE BILL
HB 1317: A BILL for an Act to amend and reenact subsection 3 of section 20.1-03-12 of the
North Dakota Century Code, relating to big game hunting license fees.
ROLL CALL
The question being on the final passage of the amended bill, which has been read, and has
committee recommendation of DO PASS, the roll was called and there were 58 YEAS,
28 NAYS, 0 EXCUSED, 8 ABSENT AND NOT VOTING.
YEAS: Aarsvold; Berg; Bernstein; Boe; Boucher; Brandenburg; Brusegaard; Carlisle;
Charging; Clark; Conrad; Damschen; DeKrey; Delmore; Devlin; Galvin; Glassheim;
Grande; Gulleson; Haas; Hanson; Hawken; Herbel; Horter; Johnson, D.; Kaldor;
Kasper; Keiser; Kelsh, S.; Kingsbury; Klemin; Koppelman; Kreidt; Kretschmar; Kroeber;
Martinson; Metcalf; Mueller; Nicholas; Norland; Nottestad; Onstad; Pietsch; Potter;
Sandvig; Schmidt; Sitte; Solberg; Svedjan; Thoreson; Thorpe; Uglem; Vigesaa; Wall;
Weiler; Williams; Zaiser; Speaker Klein
NAYS: Amerman; Bellew; Belter; Boehning; Carlson; Delzer; Dosch; Drovdal; Froelich;
Froseth; Headland; Iverson; Johnson, N.; Kelsch, R.; Kempenich; Kerzman; Meier, L.;
Meyer, S.; Monson; Pollert; Price; Rennerfeldt; Ruby; Skarphol; Timm; Wald; Wieland;
Wrangham
ABSENT AND NOT VOTING: Dietrich; Ekstrom; Hunskor; Maragos; Nelson; Owens; Porter;
Weisz
Engrossed HB 1317 passed and the title was agreed to.


----------



## buckseye

HH I'm glad you are among the willing to try. I wouldn't put to much value to research done in other states. To much difference with the extreme winters we have here occasionally. We all want bigger and better everything, but is it fair at the expense of others.

Man these trophys you are trying to grow will look real nice on some Texans wall, why should we give up what we have so rich people can come in and buy what we want out from under us. 8)


----------



## adokken

I have been hunting since 1936 and should I take hunter Safety, well it wouldn't kill me but have hunted with some young hunters that have had hunter safety and they scare the hell out of me. I think it is a individual thing like driving a motor vehicle. Some are safe drivers and some are not.


----------



## MossyMO

Looks like deer sausage is going down in price !!! but horns are gonna cost us.


----------



## KEN W

Interesting...I wouldn't have guessed this would pass.

Estimates are that the GNF will loose about $200,000 if this becomes law.

Gain of $600,000 for buck tags and loss of $800,000 for doe tags.

GNF will have increased costs since they will have to refund $25 to hunters who are unsuccessful for buck tags and take a doe as second choice.


----------



## Boy

I know the etree was for this bill, but I can't support it. I started a post on FB, and one of my points was that part of hunting is conservation and that means buying a doe tag in addition to your buck tag. I can't be the only person who believes that. All this did was take away my chance for a wall hanger because I am to cheap to spend an extra 15 bucks when I don't have to.


----------



## adokken

Sorry put my post in the wrong section, no harm done?


----------



## stevepike

Everyone who is for the bill talks about how it will stop those who apply in their wifes/mothers/etc name who is actually a non-hunter. Doubtful that someone who is so set on shooting additional illegal deer will be disuaded by another $30.

I think it will definitely have an impact on actual hunting families in lower income brackets from putting in for buck tags for all members of their family. Mother, father and 1 child goes to $105 vice $60. I just can't see this as a good thing.


----------



## goosehtr4life

Steve, here is what I am guessing they were trying to acomplish. Give people a reason to kill more does($10 tag) Get people who apply for bucks for meat a reason to get a doe tag instead.

Does anyone know if the G & F wanted this??


----------



## Boy

I heard one report that the GnF did not want it.


----------



## drjongy

Save an extra 4 cents a day and you will have the additional $15. Better yet, hold off on that extra 12 pack and you will have the money instantly.


----------



## goosehtr4life

Dr/ I don't think an extra $15 is a big deal..Just wondering what the motivation is to change currentl law...


----------



## Boy

What's wrong with eating a buck? Why do people think they are only for the wall?


----------



## headhunter

amen drjongy!! Or mabeye don't trade cars so often, or do you really need a new home stereo system? PRIORITIES. Here is what I like about this bill. If shooting a buck (hopefully not a youngster) is truly important, another 15 is pure pure peanuts. If shooting a buck is not , you will think that 15 bucks is way out of line, and you will apply for a doe tag. This should increas the odds for the people that REALLY REALLY appreciate drawing a buck tag right? Eliminate non serious buck hunters is a good thing for everyone!!


----------



## stevepike

It amazes me that so many think that if you are not willing to pay more money, that you are a not a serious hunter. $15 is not that much to me, and I will still apply for a buck tag. I will also pick up a few doe tags.

The ones who will suffer are those that are lower income and especially those in the same bracket with children who want to hunt. Some may not have the opportunity at a buck because of this. Who is to determine if they are "serious buck hunters"?

All this bill does is say it is more important to shoot a buck (if you have to pay more, it must be more important) and it will give better odds to some of us at the expense of those who cannot afford/justify it. And I highly doubt it will disuade any of those who buy buck tags for non hunting relatives, it obviously is that important to them to break the law, what is another $15?


----------



## headhunter

If you have a pretty low income, (or REALLY LOW)....but you love to hunt whitetail bucks, Somehow, some way, you will come up with enough change to put in. You've got 11 months per year to prepare for sending in your app. So all you have to do is save an extra $1.50 per month to support your deer habit. That being said, I don't buy the "I can't afford it" theory. These same folks probably sure enjoy the new music CD they bought at wal mart for $15.00 though right? nuff said.


----------



## jdpete75

HH has obviously never lived check to check to support a family. I know when my wife and I were in college we probably couldnt have afforded $70 at one time for something like deer tags. And YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! She does hunt, and she is probably a better bench shooter than alot of you noble "Buck Hunters". This is a sorry state of affairs. :roll: Do our legislators have a plan to increase average wages in this state? Doesnt seem so, yet they have all this time on thier hands to debate deer tag prices to appease the greedy few. uke:


----------



## headhunter

jdpete, I sure have been poor! Now, we didn't have kids when we were poor, because we decided having kids with the income we had would have been a stupid move. So we waited a few years to have kids when we could afford them!


----------



## Burly1

The only thing HB 1317 will accomplish, is that a long standing privilege will be more difficult to attain for those who have done nothing wrong. It's the same old story that we have been seeing all along. Those who have the most money, therefore the most influence, having their way. The fact that some here choose to speak for others, makes me think that you all must work for the government. You may think you have been in anothers financial condition, but if you are not that particular person you can not speak for them or tell them what they "will" or "should" do. There are those who may not only live check to check, but day by day, who look forward to going out in the fall for what may be his/her only real opportunity for a fairly inexpensive outdoor experience. Yeah, I know what some of us spend on deer hunting, but it can still be done pretty cheaply, if you really wanted to. No one, in my opinion, should legislate this person out of their chance to hunt a buck, any buck that he should choose. The passage of HB 1317 will accomplish exactly nothing in regard to quality deer management. Time will prove this. Until more land is opened up for public use, we will continue to have an overpopulation of deer in our state. Or just maybe , disease will solve the overpopulation problem for us. I maintain, the problem is not too few mature bucks, it is too many deer, in an area where the available cover and forage is insufficient to support them. All of the areas in the Northern part of our country and Canada that have, what trophy hunters see as ideal buck/doe ratio's, are either intensively managed on a private basis or support far fewer numbers of deer overall. These are facts. I am sure some will dispute them, but they are facts nonetheless. Burl


----------



## Niles Short

Wow alot of concern for the price of a deer tag whereas if the price of gas goes up any further -- I will have to borrow my kids tricycle to go hunting with So if you see me heading down 94 pulling a "Red Flyer" wagon with my Wirehairs in back -- then pull over and tie a rope on and give me a tow


----------



## headhunter

Burly1, I do think there will be less competition for the average buck tag in ND being the licences are up don't you? I'm not sure how much, but almost certainly, some proud Dakotan will say something like this

"35 bucks for a $%*[email protected] deer tag!!! Why, #^#&[email protected]@!:!$#? I'm not giving them THAT kind of money!!! I'm just gonna get a doe tag darn it, better eating anyway!!! to heck with em!!!, goll darn %@#!%!%!!!!!"

This sentence right here, will help "balance" the ND deer herd. It DOES do something for the overall QDM of ND. More does killed and less bucks! I'm all for this bill. Buck tags should ALWAYS cost more than doe tags. That should be a golden common sense rule for cripes sake in my opinion.


----------



## Boy

HH, what if I don't go to the bar? Should I stay home one day a week from work to save money on gas so I can apply for a buck tag? Should I give up something else during the year so I can afford it, or should they just leave it alone so those of us that do live paycheck to paycheck can afford it?

I know how passionate you are about QDM, and I appreciate that, even if I don't agree with you. QDM should benefit everyone, and while you will argue that it will, in order for that to be true, EVERYONE needs to be on the same page about it, which they are not. One person can't be happy with a 3x3, and one person be happy with a 5x5. Unfortunately, that will never happen. 1317 is bad. There are better ways to manage the deer herd in ND. The way the GnF manages the game in ND now is for the benefit and greater good of all, not just a few, and that is the way it should be.


----------



## KEN W

1317 is NOT an attempt to manage the deer herd.Almost every doe tag was sold last year....so how does 1317 attempt to sell more doe tags?It doesn't.

1317 is an attept to make people really want a buck tag and not just the meat.It will better the odds on drawing a buck tag because now people are saying...."what the heck they both cost the same,might as well apply for a buck tag."

I like this change if it will better my odds...right now aboput 60% in the unit I hunt.If just one person decides to get a doe tag instead of a buck because of it...my chances just went up.


----------



## Boy

Ken, I agree with most of that, but I do think that part of the reason that they moved does to 10 bucks was because the GnF did have a ahard time selling them. How many other years could you still buy a tag AFTER the season had started? As far as for really wanting a buck tag, that could turn into a bad thing. How many more people will fill there tag with a young buck vs. holding out for an old one? I know that if I were to pay more, I would make darn sure the tag is filled, no matter the size or age of the buck.


----------



## headhunter

BOY I see what your saying. But another whopping $15 isn't goint to make people go "bonkers" over making sure there tag is filled whith just anything just to say they got "their money's worth"....

Now, I actually have did just that one year. I missed a absolute pig of a buck in Montana., So I had my chance, But I had only 5 total days to hunt. On the second to last day I shot a 4x5, kind of heavy antlered but thats about it. about 120 b/c inches. Certainly not what I would have liked to have gotten. But remember, tags in MT are $360.00 for a non res. Not $35. (not making an excuse here, but that is what they cost)

I have since decided that no matter how much time I hunt, or what I see, I will not lose self control of my trigger finger, just to "fill my tag"....I will shoot a good one or go without! Deer meat is NOT that good to eat! Doesnt' matter if I'm in MT or ND...because I hunt the same areas year after year, so If I shoot mediocre bucks to "fill my tag"...it just hurts me for the future years as every smaller buck you kill is one less wallhanger a few years down the road .


----------



## HUNTNFISHND

Headhunter wrote:


> Deer meat is NOT that good to eat!


You should not be hunting deer than. If you don't like to eat it, don't kill it! :eyeroll:

People like that give hunting a bad name! :******:


----------



## Burly1

As I stated before, i'm not going to change the mind of a "trophy or nothing" hunter any more than he's going to change mine. The deer herd is too large. I think we all agree on that. Trophy hunters put a greater value on deer with antlers. Many people do not, but they still have the right to shoot an antlered deer if they want to. I will certainly grant that the moderate increase in the price of a buck tag won't impact a lot of people, myself included. But to say that no one at all will suffer as a result of higher prices is incorrect. Someone will suffer. We do need to manage our deer herd. I do not think that increasing the number of bucks will benefit the herd in general. While trying to manage a deer herd for general health, a deer is a deer. Does count one head as do bucks and fawns. When you question the availability of forage, would bucks not count even more? Most, even if they only make it to two years will still out weigh the average doe by approximately one-third. It follows that they would utilize a greater percentage of the available forage. As far as "quality" deer management is concerned, does anyone think that a certain area could be utilized to begin a pilot program for QDM? Perhaps that area, or areas could be treated as we treat our mule deer areas now. Require four points or better, whatever. What i'm getting at is that QDM, as a concept, has a lot going for it. But to try and manage an entire state, our state, for quality bucks would be folly without first bringing our herd down to a healthy level. Perhaps we need to have one year without an antlered deer harvest to get our populations down. I don't know. But I do know that raising the price of a buck tag will accomplish nothing, as regards our deer herd, including overall population and numbers of mature bucks. Burl


----------



## stevepike

Another point on the size of a deer and processing fees. All the places I know of charge you by the animal (and then by the pound for sausage, etc) so it would be cheaper in the long run, pound for pound to get the buck tag for $15 more up front.

I just don't see this bill working as intended or drastically affecting the applications. If it passes, it would be nice to have a survey on the app on if you applied for a doe vs. buck tag, why.


----------



## stevepike

Headhunter wrote:



> have since decided that no matter how much time I hunt, or what I see, I will not lose self control of my trigger finger, just to "fill my tag"....I will shoot a good one or go without! Deer meat is NOT that good to eat! Doesnt' matter if I'm in MT or ND...because I hunt the same areas year after year, so If I shoot mediocre bucks to "fill my tag"...it just hurts me for the future years as every smaller buck you kill is one less wallhanger a few years down the road .


Didn't I read you shot a button buck this year because you wanted some deer meat? I understand you did not know it was a buck at the time and don't begrudge you for that, but the hypocrisy of saying deer meat is not that good to eat, shooting a young of the year buck yourself for meat and telling everyone else to shoot adult does for their meat is just wrong :eyeroll:


----------



## headhunter

Stevepike, What I meant was , "Deer meat is not so darn tasty that I would just kill a small buck to put meat in the freezer" I'm not going to purposely shoot a small buck for that jerky. NO way. Sure deer meat is good, but I'm not going to mismanage our herd so I can have that jerky if I don't find a good one to shoot.

Yeh, there was 2 fawns side by side and I took a gamble and shot the one on the left.....mabeye I should have shot the one on the right huh? It was a buck fawn, And it ****** me right offfff. Ruined the day. Made the meat taste bad. etc etc etcetc. Lesson learned. First time though I gotta say.


----------



## Aythya

I see a couple problems with this bill. First, it wil result in lost revenues for the Game and Fish Department. Second, if the bill reduces doe tags to $10 it is going to be really hard to raise the price in the future. Not that it can't be done but once you give people something it is hard to get it back.

I can't figure out what wildlife management problem this legislation is supposed to solve. Oh wait, there isn't one.


----------



## headhunter

Its good to make buck tags more "special"....they always should have been more money. I guarantee there will be folks that "drop out" of the buck tag lottery because of this. Mabeye not tons and tons, but enough that more people who are really serious about hunting whitetail bucks will get the tags instead of the "whatever jumps out to end the season" kind of hunter. Hopefully they will do us all a favor and apply for what they always should have been applying for from the start. :beer:


----------



## Dick Monson

One of the reasons I like this bill is that it addresses the issue of who draws a buck tag, why they applied for it, and how they use it. That's worth an extra $15.



> The only thing HB 1317 will accomplish, is that a long standing privilege will be more difficult to attain for those who have done nothing wrong.


Would it not make the privilage easier to obtain by shrinking the pool of applicants? If the bill is not revenue neutral a simple fix is to adjust the doe price to make it revenue neutral. Make the doe tag a whopping $12. NDGF could adjust the price easily every year.


----------



## buckseye

The amount of deer people see has to be relative to how many hours they are looking for deer. If I go out for an hour I might see 5-6 deer but if I'm out all day I might see 20-30 deer.

I for one practicaly live with the deer so I see alot of deer big and small. I hope we always have to sweat and frett and work our behinds off to get trophy deer, it just seems more satisfying when you have to earn a trophy instead of just driving out in the country and seeing one stand there and letting you blast it.

I hunt for personal reasons, not just to impress somebody. 8)

The only way there will be less bucks killed in season is if they let out less buck tags. Raising the price will not affect the sucess rate.


----------



## Aythya

There are many reasons that people apply for buck tags and not only because they want big antlers. This bill, and the rationale for it, seem to assume this is the primary reason and that increasing the price will somehow increase the chances for a buck tag. I don't believe this is the case.

But my basic problem with this bill is that it could be the start of a system that will ultimately increase the commercial value of whitetail bucks. We are placing a price on antlers. And, this bill is different than legislation the G&F might need to raise more revenue because (a) they aren't saying they need a license increase to raise revenue (b) they have not identified a management problem that this legislation would solve (c) it sets up a differential system the begins to make buck tags less attractive to some hunters based on price, and this is wrong.

There will still be the same number of buck tags sold. The demographic may shift to those who can pay or are willing to pay $35 vs. $20 but not much else will change.

There is some kind of mystic about hunting and shooting bucks vs. does. Some of this stems from the past when shooting does was considered akin to not being quite as good a hunter as the guy who shot a buck. Even a small buck was considered better than a big doe because it was a buck. In addition, the culture in ND has not been supportive of systems that would be set up to vary from the standard deer season. For example, a number of years ago there were some proposals kicked around to make some areas in the state "trophy" areas. That is, if you got a tag for that area you could only shoot a 4pt buck or better. The deer hunters in this state quickly put the brakes on that idea.

It seems to me that if the desire is to have more "quality" deer, and that is a really subjective term, then education is the key. This could mean educating hunters on the need to let the little ones go, so to speak, so they have a chance to grow bigger antlers. However, this has to be based in science as it isn't a truism that if you let that forkhorn pass in three years it will be a trophy (again, trophy is a highly subjective term). If organizations like DU, Delta Waterfowl, Rocky Mtn. Elk Foundation, etc. can mount successful education campaigns to change a cultural aspect of hunting to benefit a species, then others can do it as well. But this bill doesn't have anything like that attached to it in any sense.

Do the deer hunters of ND want bigger antlers and more chances to bag deer with bigger antlers? I don't know but we need to find that out. Then we can begin to discuss how to go about that without using money as the only means to try to get this change to occur.

Raising the price of a buck tag will not change the way most people hunt in this state. And the slippery slope we begin down with this legislation is that it doesn't address a wildlife management problem. It is an attempt address some people's wish to up their chances for a tag at the expense of others. The rationale for this legislation sounds too much like a complaint that somebody "got my buck tag and they are going to waste it on the first thing with antlers."

Any education and/or management scheme that could result in a change in the opportunity to shoot bigger deer has to have multiple components to it. To be successful, it should have significant hunting challenges attached to it, significant risk (I may not get a deer this year) attached to it, and be seen by everyone as something that is highly desirable. This legislation has none of those components.


----------



## buckseye

Excellent post Aytha...


----------



## Draker16

GooseBuster3 said:


> And the guys who drive section lines and roads all day long shouldnt get a deer tag. The state doesnt need morons like that hunting!!
> All that im saying is price wont matter. And nothing will change my view on this.


lol so true, i swear sometimes i see people that NEVER leave their vehicle they just drive around, and around, and around until one jumps out in front of thier truck so they can run it over im guessing because if they had to shoot it that would involve leaving the vehicle which is a sin to these people.


----------



## jdpete75

> [
> 
> lol so true, i swear sometimes i see people that NEVER leave their vehicle they just drive around, and around, and around until one jumps out in front of thier truck so they can run it over im guessing because if they had to shoot it that would involve leaving the vehicle which is a sin to these people.


what a bunch of tripe, the biggest problem contributing to road hunting is all the posted land. There are only so many people that can stomp the open areas before they are useless, then what. Once in a while asking works, but I know around our farm if you arent neibors you probably arent getting on until last weekend for deer.


----------



## Habitat Hugger

Remmi, I don't think you right on this one. I live in a rural area SW of Bismarck and thinking back as honestly as possible, the ONLY hunters that I or any of my neighbors seem to have problems with are invariably the younger ones. Ones that obviously should have learned stuff in Hunter Ed. As a hunter Ed instructor, I always ask myself what we are doing wrong, and how these kids seem to be gung ho with ethics and seem to be law abiding when they pass the class, but a few years later, seem to develop "selective memory." I've never seen an older hunter ground ball pheasants in the ditch on posted property, shoot out the window, drink while hunting, etc. 
This is not to say older guys are all fine and don't do this stuff either, but we just never seem to have problems with them. Honestly, I'm being objective and trying to be honest, and trying to be sure that I'm not being guilty of "selective memory" either! I hate to tar everyone by the same brush, but the older guys just seem to be nicer, more humble (especially the out of staters-hate to say that on this website!) ask respectfully, and don't seem to have that "you owe me" sense of entitlement attitude that so many young ones seem to have. Turn down an older hunter because you have family coming this weekend or some other good reason and they understand. So often, turning down a younger hunter ends up with an argument, sometimes even being called names and cursed at, with words like "we all own the game, hunting heritage, hunters rights", thrown around! No kidding! I hope I've taught my own kids better! 
I bend over backwards trying to be nice to everybody who comes by, and don't turn down many people, but for the last year or so I cringe when a pickup full of young hunters pull in the yard, unless I know them and they have been out before. They sure aren't all bad - there's some real fine young people out there. 
Being these local lawbreakers tend to be younger, I've up to now tried to nicely explain the laws (even when they try to buffalo me by saying the didn't know the law!) , give them warnings, tell them to shape up,etc. but after last fall, after another bad experience, I now carry a cell phone, digital camera with me always, and now plan to turn the slobs in, no matter what their ages. 
You MIGHT be correct that deer roadhunters or at least people cruising the roads during deer season tend to be older, (maybe cause they play out quicker and tend to cruise around during their breaks??) but in the area where I hunt deer, there seems to be no correlation between age and road hunters/cruisers. In fact, just sitting here thinking about it, I'm not too sure deer road hunters tend to be younger, too. ???Possibly younger hunters don't have the connections and relationships with landowners built up over the years that us older guys do.????


----------



## Habitat Hugger

Back to what this discussion is all about. As far as I'm concerned, if the G&F would lose3 $200,000 with this bill, then can it! The tens of thousands of extra doe tags this last year were pretty well all sold, so if it ain't broke, then don't fix it. I'd sooner see $200,000 spent on more PLOTS or other programs, rather than trying to keep a few trophy types happier. Doubt that this bill would make any difference with application numbers, anyway. 
And Aythya - really like your posts - good points, well written, and well thought out, at least in my lowly opinion. Keep 'em coming.


----------



## headhunter

The G/F hasn't "lost" any money if they decrease doe tags and increase buck tags. Think of all the extra doe tags someone just said they "sold out" of at twenty bucks a pop. The bigger our "doe" population the more tags sold and the G/F reaps the rewards. They are so far ahead from the last couple years of selling pretty good amounts of doe tags that the "loss" of cheapining doe tags is just peanuts..........

Think about it, an extra 500 doe tags sold in just half the units of ND would be hundreds of thousands of dollars in just one season. I know they loaded their pockets off of our poor overhunted unit of 3a1. Like 4000 frickin tags worth.......(about 2000 too many .....kill em all right?....bang bang bang. One deer is "too many" for our biologist I guess. Like Donald Trump says....Your Fired.


----------



## swift

Headhunter give it a rest. You should take some of your energy and enroll in a wildlife biology program somewhere. If you had some education on the subjects you preach, you would have more credibility. The ND game and fish does a tremendous job with the MAJORITY of the citizens in mind. Ask your father or grandfather how many deer they saw in a season when they were your age. The answer would suprise you. I remember when seeing a buck was an accomplishment. Shooting one was huge. Now it has to be a Boone and Crockett buck to even turn a head. Why don't you do your part for the herd and not apply for a buck tag for 5 years until the herd recovers. I'm willing to bet you won't take this option because you NEED to shoot a buck.


----------



## Field Hunter

Everybodies spoiled these days. Just 25 or so years ago before we had the CRP program there were not many deer. Most zones there was a hell of a wait for a buck tag in terms of numbers of years. The does weren't given out as freely either. There were many years that you went with out a buck or a doe permit. The game and fish has done a great job....the CRP just happened along and the deer, pheasants and waterfowl have all exploded in population. I'm not sure what the deer population is in the NW but in the SE and central ND areas the farmers are screaming for a reduction in doe numbers.....seems to get worse the more we harvest. Not sure on the $$$ for bucks and does but my gut feeling is that the GnF is going to loose some income. How about taxing the outfitters.....say 30% of all fees from the idiots from out-of-state that pay to hunt whitetails.


----------



## swift

Field Hunter, You have a great idea. Lets impose a tax on outfitters of 30% or higher. Then the money can go to help with the depredation problems that outfitters create and to secure public access to land to offset land outfitters have taken away. This is the best idea I've heard in a long time.


----------



## headhunter

idiots from out of state that hunt whitetails.......hmm, well I guess that would be me. I'm an idiot that likes hunting whitetails out of state. I don't use an outfitter but when I slap down $640 for a chance to hunt elk / Deer in Montana I'm dam sure paying for it. Whom I love is the "Idiots" who claim hunting is to "exspensive" and so on, but gosh darn it huh? how about that nice new pickup your driving, all that money you spend at the bar, the snowmobile and mabeye that membership at the YMCA. Oh and let us not forget about that $2000 entertainment system , complete with the flatscreen TV??? LOL!! Yeh, us folks who would pay to hunt Whitetails might be idiots, but at least we know what the hell our priorities are. uke:


----------



## headhunter

Swift, how do you know what I do for a living or what type of education I've had...................

???


----------



## headhunter

swift how do you know that I don't read educational books / biology books for fun in my spare time? Its none of your business but don't assume people know nothing, You think only the "almighty NDGF" knows a thing or 2 about deer and how to manage wildlife???? CMON!!


----------



## jdpete75

OOOHHHHHHH Headhunter your my hero :roll: will you please *mis*manage our deer in ND. NOT


----------



## headhunter

:lol:  :lol:


----------



## headhunter

JDpeter, shush youngster. Do you need a little soap.


----------



## Field Hunter

Unfortunately some people won't be happy until the entire state of ND is enrolled in QDM and everyone will have to pay to hunt whitetails. Evidently your Daddy has a bunch of land so you'll never have to worry about it.

I do think taxing the outfitters a surcharge that goes to the state is a good idea. You know....the philosophy that if you want to hunt them you won't mind paying the extra $300.00 to hunt here in ND.


----------



## headhunter

Are you about 19 years old young man? Oh, you know I'm close...admit it.


----------



## jdpete75

Actually Im 33. Which makes me old enough to remember your whiney little tirades about how bad you had it in Texas with hunting leases and not being able to afford them. Now it seems you are trying to lead the charge for bringing that crap up here.


----------



## indsport

Field Hunter: read your Monday post and I agree, there are some very short memories or younger folks on this list who have no perspective on which to base decisions. And although I agree with your comment about numbers of deer in SE North Dakota, unit 2G1 and 2G2 are prime examples of what happens when access becomes a problem. Look at the number of doe tags GF tries to give out in these units. Guess again which units have the largest amount of posting. One year I had an extra doe tag in 2G2, contacted GF as to who had filed deer depredation complaints, went to those land owners, the land was posted and they weren't allowing any others to hunt on their land. I am not sure, but I suspect they also billed G&F for deer proofing the hay yards. 
A simple rule: if you cannot get access to land, how are you going to reduce the deer numbers?

I would like to see G&F only provide deer proof hay yards to landowners that allow hunting on their property to reduce the deer population.


----------



## g/o

12


----------



## Field Hunter

We already have a 16 1/2 day deer season, a 2 week long muzzleloader season, and a 3 month bow season. I don't think we need another special doe season. Adding a couple of weeks at the end didn't seem to bring the numbers of hunters the gnf was looking for. Try to add a doe only season before the crops are down and before the buck season....no way would that be well accepted. What we need is for the landowners to allow access during those seasons to help the GnF with the population goals. I hunt the South Central area of the state for deer and have little or no trouble getting permission. The two times I have been denied access were when outfitters didn't want me to spook the bucks before there clients got a chance.


----------



## headhunter

Johndeere, No , I am not trying to bring that crap up here. don't know where you come up with that. You can manage deer to a healthier population without turning us into a "Kansas" dammit.......Why is it so hard to explain that? Less total deer, but more bucks is what I'm all about, Ive never said anything about the "merits" of commercial hunting. WHy would I do that when I've experinced it first hand...Well I'm done whining for now,
Love,
CASEIH
:wink:


----------



## swift

Headhunter I watched the learning channel when they were doing open heart surgery. Would you want me to do surgery on YOU? reading some articles doesn't make you an expert. You seem to be passionate about this so why not go get the education you need to implement it. Armchair biologists have in the past and will continue to do much more harm than good. By the way what do you do for a living?


----------



## headhunter

I'm a hitman.


----------



## swift

Well I don't have anything to worry about because I'm just a one horned spike. No trophy here.


----------



## MossyMO

A hitman looking for a trophy buck......... :toofunny:


----------



## stevepike

> Well I don't have anything to worry about because I'm just a one horned spike. No trophy here.


I wouldn't say that, there is one button buck that didn't get to see this year because of HH. Even after many postings about knowing your target, how to identify the different sexes of juvenile deer, etc. Hypocrisy and comments like


> I know they loaded their pockets off of our poor overhunted unit of 3a1. Like 4000 frickin tags worth.......(about 2000 too many .....kill em all right?....bang bang bang. One deer is "too many" for our biologist I guess.


 are what draw you so much flack, not your views on QDM. Maybe instead of classes on biology, you would be better served with a couple on speech, public relations, etc.

It's not always about your goal, but sometimes about how your approach it.


----------



## purepower

its still gonna be bout the same for us in sd 45 for buck and doe tags


----------



## headhunter

At least I admitted it ok Stevepike. cheez. Thats the first and only screw up I made when it comes to what I'm killing. Except for a few cases of ground shrinkage of course. Lets read it again.

I know they loaded their pockets off of our poor overhunted unit of 3a1. Like 4000 frickin tags worth.......(about 2000 too many .....kill em all right?....bang bang bang. One deer is "too many" for our biologist I guess.

I don't see anything false about that post. It wasn't meant to be candy coated and reader friendly either . They issued too many deer tags, they should have known better, then they extended the season, and they do things like this on a consistant bases in my unit. They don't allow for massive buck kills that are ALWAYS a result of an early winter during rifle season. Like Britney say's...OOPS I did it again.... good thing I'm not in charge of Christmas bonus's down in Bismarck.


----------



## stevepike

Good thing you're not in charge of anything in Bismarck.

Have you ever talked to anyone directly at the G&F or do you just bash them on the internet? If you do talk to them, what do they say? What type of numbers do they get in their surveys? Do they survey the areas you hunt or other areas of the unit? What facts do you have to support any of your claims?

The comments of G&F making tons of money off deer in "your" unit and how they mismanage everything is really old. I am not sure if I have ever heard any facts from you HH other than cutting and pasting some QDM comments. Tell us some numbers, where and when, who your talking to at G&F who are blowing you off and then maybe you can gain some credibility. :beer:


----------



## headhunter

:roll:


----------



## headhunter

Heard now that tags are the same old price , its not gonna go through. ANyone know and why the hell would they scrap a good idea like that?? idiotic.


----------



## KEN W

Not a good idea....Debate was that it would price out lower income people especially kids from buck tags.GNF can issue doe tags free if they want to make them cheaper especially towards the end.

Plus it was stated GNF would take approx. a $500,000 hit if does tags were reduced that much.


----------



## DJRooster

Good move! Common sense prevails again!


----------



## jdpete75

:jammin:


----------



## swift

The measure failed because the MAJORITY of the people in the state don't see deer hunting as a way to make up for their own inadequacies. The idiotic thing about it is some can't understand that.


----------



## headhunter

Swift.....INCORRECT SIR. The fact, remember the word fact ok... the FACT is higher priced buck tags is a very very common sense mangement tool....I has to do with MANAGEMENT people..... not "how much little tommy can afford"......or what "Inadequacies" we have.....good gosh unbelievable. If 15 dollars detours you from hunting than go take up golf for cripes freakin sakes....what a bunch of $#@* unadulterated bull sh!t. :******:


----------



## KEN W

You guys speak like true big buck hunters....BUT you are in the minority in ND....the family with 4-6 people that hunt and ALL would like to have a buck tag,do not understand why they should have to pay more...sorry but they are right.

PLUS....why would the deer hunters in this state go along with the GNF taking a huge monetary hit like that????? :eyeroll:


----------



## MossyMO

Swift

I agree with you 100%. And those that do go out and try to make up for their inadequacies and fail to get their trophy dream buck blame their failure on those that don't have a problem shooting a nice, run of the mill buck or dig themselves even deeper by laying the blame on our young hunters who get involved in youth season.

As Colonel Potter would say from M.A.S.H., that is real bull pucky.


----------



## headhunter

Mossymo, I don't blame anyone but the G/F,, if I don't see adequate numbers of mature bucks come November......It is not my fault if there are no deer to hunt......I don't set tag numbers, big brother bismarck allows the slaughter in my unit. Some times the only way to gittRdone is to bump the tags in cost to eliminate hunters with "macho" troubles who have no self control during deer season. ....Youth are never the problem during gun season, its the old farts who shoot "whatever" to fill a tag....I can' imagine even getting excited about deer season if all you were going to do is shoot a run of the mill, young, dumb,standing in the open buck....whats the point??? Mabeye these people just like "Killing Stuff"...if thats the case now I really don't like them.


----------



## MossyMO

HH

Help me refresh my memory. I am not being a smart a$$, I am being sincere. If I remember correctly, you are from and hunt the Upham area (3A4). Which is right across the highway from 3A2?


----------



## swift

HH.

Show me one state that uses this common sense approach of charging more for a buck tag for residents. I have hunted in 11 states and haven't run into that until you started preaching it. If something is so common sense to me but the majority of others say I'm wrong I'd look at myself as being the one missing the point which you don't seem to care to do.


----------



## headhunter

Mossymoe...I hunt 3a1. Its the far NW Unit that borders Sask and Montana. (and the hunting is almost INSTANTLY better as soon as you cross either border) Less pressure.


----------



## jdpete75

I could agree with a raise in tag prices if the legislature would have the sack to deal with our declining access problems first. IMO the leasing of massive blocks of land by o/g and Out of State parties purchasing land just for the hunting is a far bigger threat. If we become a state known for Big bucks I think that there would be even more of this happening and we would never be able to recover what we have lost.


----------



## DJRooster

Doubt it...Headhunter, it sounds like you have "big" buck fever but not everyone is running a temperature like you! I think you have a very distorted view of our Game and Fish Dept. Maybe the hunting is better across the border but I doubt it is because Mont. and Sask. wildlife officials are managing their deer herds for "big" bucks. There are so many other factors that go into making a comparison like you are attempting to make and you are not using a good analogy.


----------



## MossyMO

HH

I hunt 3A2, the unit right beside yours and have no problem with deer numbers, there are plenty. Last year it may have been a little less, but their were 7 moose that moved into the area I hunt, which moose drive a majority of the deer out of their 3 to 5 mile area.

jdpete75

I agree with your thoughts on outfitters laying claim to land is more of a concern, or should be.


----------



## swift

I believe the east boundry of 3A1 is HWY 52 north of Minot which is not in the Northwest part of the state. I point this out because we are told of the terrible deer numbers in that unit, but the opinion is contrived from a tiny portion of the unit. 3A1 is one of, if not the largest units in the state. Deer numbers around Lignite, Bowbells, Portal and such are fine but the G&F get flack because the numbers around Zahl are perceived poor. When I drive north through Zahl in the winter there are large numbers of deer around the pivots and the refuge. BUT there are even more POSTED signs. If your land has too few deer maybe habitat should be looked at. Deer population across the state is at all time highs so if the G&F gave too many tags for 3A1 chances are the habitat has been stripped and the carrying capacity has been lowered. Folks worried in that area need to mend their own fence before they complain to everybody else. Also winter hits the whole state and I lived in Williston the last 5 years but I'm from Devils Lake so if you think winters have been bad in the NW come east. Interestingly enough, there are more deer than ever in the coldest snowyest part of the state. Because there is habitat.


----------



## headhunter

Swift, the East boundry is not north of Minot it is by Stanley. Highway 2 intersects some highway I think mabeye even west of stanley. Not sure on that though. No We don't have thick covered habitat....but think of it this way....if you manage correctly, you can have mature animals on a frozen lake bed. Escape cover is only HALF the equation.


----------



## headhunter

Swift. The G / F is well aware if they choose to be that the CRP has dwindled alot in the past 5 years. If they were Capital D Doing their Job they would have been taking this into consideration when they decided how many buck tags to give out since about 1998. Instead they just give out "old management" numbers that may have worked in the CRP boom of the late 80's early 90's. They have N O T progressed with the regression of the CRP. That is just a fact. And deer numbers by the way are W AA YY down from east of Crosby south to highway 2 and west to Montana all the way back to Canada. over Half the unit is in the toilet.


----------



## swift

this is going to sound odd but, How can you say the G&F is giving the same tags as 1998 when each year there has been an increase in the number of tags given. This is based on scientific study done by the biologists. The FACT is they know the real deer population numbers in the units and the FACT is you guess there are too many tags given. When you hire a pilot and biologist to accurately assess the deer population in the whole area then you can complain. I hunted 3A1 the previous 5 years before this year and found there to be plenty of deer. During that time frame you were in Texas telling the G&F how to manage the deer herd.


----------



## headhunter

Swift. I was home every year...Every year during deer season. As far as knowing whats going on It was like I was never gone during deer season. As a matter of fact I knew more about and payed more attention to the deer in those 4 years because about the year I moved, I noticed a fairly sharp decline in deer numbers and definately in bucks of any size. When I left it was the beginning and it is now where I figured it would go if we threw in a few bad winters .....well we got those few bad winters in 2000 and in 2003. To say hunting big bucks in 3a1 isn't what it used to be is pretty much an understatement.

I have hunted deer in 3a1 since 1989 every single year. Or at least been with someone like my dad or a friend. I have also except 4 years lived in that unit...."with the deer"....farming etc. I can in all seriousness claim to know more about the history/habits/herd structure etc than any of the biologists that are "currently" running our show. I am not bragging, but lets just say I pay attention and know what the hell is going on. I will admit I do not hunt the eastern areas of 3a1 so I don't really know if they are in a "deer boom" like the rest of ND but I seriously doubt it.

Your right, they are not only giving out the same tags as 98 when the deer population and especially the Buck population is spiraling downhill....they are giving out MORE....MORE!!???!!! Thanks for the sad reminder. Is that Salt on the gaping wound or what?? I'm seriously not sure what a 3a1 biologist would say if you ask him about the past and future in our unit. Or what "should" be done for management. I'm going to give them another shot this summer to see how far they push the deer tags....If tags don't drop I suppose I'll have to wonder in their office and have a Heart to Heart with "whats his face"......Sitting still and doing nothing gets you just that...nothing. Oh, here is what they'd say if you asked about the sh!tty hunting.....

"Well, yaah.,,,, deer numbers our down though this year.....and its mainly due to the tough winter"....stammer stammer....(of course it couldn't be because they've been giving our 6000 PLUS TAGS EVERY STINKING YEAR!!!!!!) That may not help either...ya think? They would simply like to kill them all. Cause hey, the farmers with irrigation pivots can't b1ch if there are no deer to cause trouble right??? RIGHT... But like you say Swift..."butt out headhunter, the G/F know what they are doing, they are the experts"...) Well, I'll give you this, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, and they certainly should be the experts, but I'll give them that badge of honor when they earn it.


----------



## swift

HH, You need to read your post and critically think about what your saying. I don't think being around for a week every year for four years makes you an expert. Next, until you get over yourself and realize that there are people out there that know more than you do you will have a hard time convincing anyone, that you know anything. One bit of advice don't claim to more than professionals that have done their homework to get where they are. They have researched the deer population in respect to the mission the agency has set forth so, NO, YOU DO NOT KNOW MORE THAN THE BIOLOGISTS CURRENTLY WORKING YOUR AREA. You know what YOU want and can't understand why everyone doesn't want what you want. It really is a shame this is a topic anyway the management of game and fish issues should be left up to the department not the legislature.


----------



## headhunter

Swift ok so fine, they know more than me. Fine. You'd sure think they should. .... But they are doing one hell of a not so fine job.....to put it in a nutshell. And I, am pointing out whats wrong, because it does N O T take a person with a biology degree to know how to manage deer properly. Remember that statement, just going to school for 4 years doesn't necessarly make you "smarter" in the decision making dept now does it.? of course it doesn't. On that subject I've met some pretty educated folks in my life that weren't very good in the common sense department.


----------



## swift

That's a pretty standard answer from people that don't have an expertise, or don't have the moxie to go and get it. I bet you tell you doctor what to do because you know your body too. Good luck in your quest to make hunting into what you want. This is my last post.


----------



## headhunter

Can't believe you think that a biology degree is First in line of importance when managing a Whitetail herd. Give me 5000 acres I can control in one chunk and I'll give you a healthy herd with plenty of food plots to support plenty of deer with many many mature bucks to choose from. And I won't need to hire a biologist to accomplish this!! Or tell me what I'm doing wrong!! :wink:


----------

