# gst belief that the overpopulation is all the G&F fault!



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

I decided to open this up just so we could stay on topic in the other thread.

Once again gst, what type of predidation tags do you suggest? I guess my thought would be that if you have a deer problem, and the G&F are supplying any type of assistance that the next two seasons you would be required to open up your land to people who have doe tags for the unit. A list can be compiled by the G&F and those interested can then contact you and arrange a time to come help reduce the population in the affected areas!

Oh wait, the G&F currently have a program that puts people who want deer harvested in contact with perspective hunters. I forgot that in the past myself and others have done this. The landowner was very glad to see us and others.

So tell us just how would these special tags work any different!!!!!!!!

You spin a good yarn, but you have a motive that is either financially driven or self serving to want the continuation of baiting and really do not care about the disease issue.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> You spin a good yarn, but you have a motive that is either financially driven or self serving to want the continuation of baiting and really do not care about the disease issue


Ron, disease is not the issue, but nice try.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

> Once again gst, what type of predidation tags do you suggest


?

I'm not GST but I suggest the type of tag that is free. That should get a few more out there. We have suggested free tags, reduced price tags for the teens and retired. Hey if we give retired people a deer tag for free they just may take time to have a hunt. Another is go back to party hunts where the deer do get killed very efficiently. There are so many ways that have worked in the past, I cant believe our scientists don't keep better records of what works for fair deer herd management. Any Rancher in the State can manage their herd better than the G&F does the deer herd.

It's all about the bottom line and the bottom line starts with a $


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

So buckeye what good do free tags do when a majority of the deer are being baited onto off limit property?

I lived in WI and the last year I was there, when you purchased a over the counter buck tag, you where given 7 doe tags free for use in certain units and you could then purchase for $7.00 3 more doe tags every day for the entire season. Yet this giving of free tags did nothing to increase the doe harvest in those units.

Many who where horn hunting did not want the does taken or disturbed as those does where the reason bucks would frequent their property. The end result now is WI runs a Sept to Feb gun season on does and this has put a heck of a strain on landowner tolerance of hunting activity especially those willing to open up their land.

You may wonder why I keep referring to WI, and I do so because they have tried without success many of the same things that get brought forward. Like I said to gst, unless the G&F has the cooperation of landowners you could give away 1000's of tags in a unit and end up with no significant change to the problem areas and as a result decimate the the population in the rest of the unit.

Down in one of the south east units of the state, this has happened. Landowners on one side of the unit have been aggressive with allowing doe hunting and in the other side access was almost nil. What happened was that the hunting pressure moved to where access was an it upset the apple cart in regards to the population distribution. One part was well below levels even the G&F wanted as well as landowners and the other part over run.

This stuff is out there for all of us to know, but it takes asking questions and attending the Advisory meetings as well. But instead we get people claiming that the G&F just want money for the licenses or as gst claims are responsible for the over population.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

> So buckeye what good do free tags do when a majority of the deer are being baited onto off limit property?


A majority?? :sniper:


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

buckseye said:


> Another is go back to party hunts where the deer do get killed very efficiently.


The vast majority of gun parties are still doing this regardless of the law.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

> The vast majority of gun parties are still doing this regardless of the law.


Well then i am very happy to say the people I hunt with and the folks who live around here don't party hunt or break laws period. And we we are the majority here. You got a bad majority around where you are I guess.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Party hunting is pretty common across much of the state, ESPECIALLY when it comes to "just a doe tag".

What would you call those guys that get a buck tag for themself, their daughter, wife, auntie, and their friends brothers mothers grandma? Party hunting. LOTS of it going on.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Funny how the solution is now party hunting being legal, and then when buck tag numbers drop because of this, the same people will whine because they did not get their coveted buck tag and the cycle goes around and around and around!!!!!!! Making it the G&F fault for everything!

I noticed that when presented with information pertaining to free license and access gst has ran away from the issue he raised blaming the G&F for over population.

The units that have not sold out all doe tags are also units in which we have some of the highest predidation complaints coming in. It also is the DL area one of the most heavily commercially controlled areas. See any correlation?

What does that mean? Same as it does in the areas out west especially in the Mott and Hettinger area, no access means no deer control. So gst, tell us how these areas are ever going to come into balance without the cooperation of the landowners or tenants?

We await your stunning and insightful solution!

Buckeye I know this has been asked of you in the past, but where does the logic come in that the G&F would like to see 70,000 tags issued with a population level that coincides with that number translate into the G&F wanting more revenue. To me it would seem that if that is the case, the G&F would rather see license sales increased instead of decrease!

Do you have a valid explanation for this?

Your belief like gst propaganda are so full of holes that dried cow pies would pass through the strainer!


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

> What would you call those guys that get a buck tag for themself, their daughter, wife, auntie, and their friends brothers mothers grandma? Party hunting. LOTS of it going on.


Sportsmen... definitely not outdoorsmen, conservationists or hunters

And you should report all the illegal stuff going on in your neck of the woods... you don't see that around here.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

> Buckeye I know this has been asked of you in the past, but where does the logic come in that the G&F would like to see 70,000 tags issued with a population level that coincides with that number translate into the G&F wanting more revenue. To me it would seem that if that is the case, the G&F would rather see license sales increased instead of decrease!
> 
> Do you have a valid explanation for this?
> 
> Your belief like gst propaganda are so full of holes that dried cow pies would pass through the strainer


Ron you are grasping for straws, I honestly don't understand what you have written in the above quote. I have always said the G&F are in the business of making money and the more deer tags they sell the more money they make.. that's as simple as I can be.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Buckeye the goal of the G&F is to reach a point of 70,000 tags give or take a few hundred either way as a long term goal. With over 120,000 being sold now, how does attempting to reach a target level well below the current numbers equate to them being in the business of selling more license simply for a revenue stream?

The G&F by the way do not set the price of license fees that is done by the Leg and correct me if I am wrong but when has the G&F asked for an increase in fees for deer.

They are required by law to do a fiscal note on any proposed legislation and I will agree at times have stated that proposed changes would have a negative affect on current budgets and since they have to provide a certain level of service do not support the loss of revenue those changes would cause especially when it required an increase in services that they have to provide.

Yes the G&F and us hunters and fishermen are enjoying the increased revenue stream that the deer license sales are providing, but the G&F are not managing to maintain those sales levels, and are actively pursuing practices that would reduce the need for the high level of license issued each fall. *So how does that fit with your view they are in the business of making money!!!!!!!!!!!!!*


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

> Buckeye the goal of the G&F is to reach a point of 70,000 tags give or take a few hundred either way as a long term goal. With over 120,000 being sold now, how does attempting to reach a target level well below the current numbers equate to them being in the business of selling more license simply for a revenue stream?


So what are they actually doing that could help?

When you want/have to get rid of stock you don't sell your stock at full price.. people in business don't anyway. Right now it seems the G&F are relying on the very competitive sportsman to buy ridiculous amounts of tags, and that isn't working the way it sounds. :sniper:


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

> The G&F by the way do not set the price of license fees that is done by the Leg and correct me if I am wrong but when has the G&F asked for an increase in fees for deer


Are G&F not the people we hire to be our experts? And are they not supposed to make recommendations to the law makers using all their expertise? :sniper:


----------



## drjongy (Oct 13, 2003)

The G&F can give away a million tags for free, but if you don't have the access to the land is doesn't mean squat!! Greedy horn hunters have caused a lot of this problem, not the G&F.


----------



## holmsvc (Nov 26, 2003)

buckseye said:


> > Once again gst, what type of predidation tags do you suggest
> 
> 
> ?
> ...


Don't kids 16 and under get doe tags for $10?

Why do we need to give retired people a tag so they can find time to hunt? THEY ARE RETIRED, if you are retired you have 40 mores hours a week than other people to hunt. The cost the tags is one of the lowest costs to hunting.

The issue is and will continue to be land access.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

I guess you haven't noticed but many older folks live on a pretty tight budget. Especially those above 80 years old, they are notch babies. Why cant we just go shoot a damn deer and give to these people who worked hard and long in this state so we could have all the luxuries we take for granted. Come on give something back to those who gave so much.. what is so difficult about that? :sniper:



> RETIRED, if you are retired you have 40 mores hours a week than other people to hunt.


Wow sounds like you are competing with the retired folks for hunting opportunity.. pretty sad man pretty sad!

I agree this is totally a human access issue. Two kinds of people.. those with and those without.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

buckeye as things sit right now, those with depend on those without to do the bulk of the deer harvest. If you doubt that simply look at the demographics of those who buy license to hunt deer!!

I do not begrudge a landowner the right to control access to his land. Given that right though also comes the reality of dealing with the consequences. If a landowner is unwilling to allow access and has predidation issues then he should not seek relief from the G&F. That is the way the policy of the G&F use to be until we had some commercial operators who sit in the Leg forced the policy change.

Simple and straight forward. Now that does not mean that areas where safety to occupants or livestock need to be open, but you get the point.
So the G&F could give away all of the license and I doubt harvest levels would increase at all without the cooperation of landowners who are affected by deer predidation or turkeys and yes even pheasants!!!

Now tell me buckeye how does the long term management goals of the G&F show that they are in the business of selling more license as you claim?

I ask this because of the past history of issues that get banged around on the Internet. We hear people make outrageous statements like yours and accuse the G&F of being this or that but when pushed to provide proof run away or try or take the subject in a different direction.

gst made the claim of the population growth being all on the G&F, you chimed in that they are in the business of making money. Both have been debunked and so you try and make the case that seniors should get reduced or free tags because they are on a limited budget. Well here is a news flash for you. If they are a landowner they can get a free tag now!!!!!!!!

If they are not a landowner with the price of gas the last few years, I highly doubt the cost of a license in most cases where the reason they would not hunt if the budget was so tight! Especially if that person lived in Fargo or Bismarck for example. Pretty tough finding any open land if you do not have contacts within a few minutes of either city.

We can continue with the what ifs all you want, but you still need to answer the question as to how the management objective of the G&F supports your notion that they are in the money making business!!!!!!!!!


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

> buckeye as things sit right now, those with depend on those without to do the bulk of the deer harvest. If you doubt that simply look at the demographics of those who buy license to hunt deer!!


You lost me.



> gst made the claim of the population growth being all on the G&F, you chimed in that they are in the business of making money. Both have been debunked


Debunked in your own mind... but then you only speak for yourself right?



> We can continue with the what ifs all you want, but you still need to answer the question as to how the management objective of the G&F supports your notion that they are in the money making business!!!!!!!!!


In business when overstocked you sell down at reduced prices. There are some decent business courses on-line that help to understand business profits and losses.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

> Pretty tough finding any open land if you do not have contacts within a few minutes of either city.


So where does this fit into the enormous deer over population problem.
Back to human problems.... sounds like G&F needs to require a course on how to be social, and have neat little classes to help those who need it.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

buckseye said:


> > buckeye as things sit right now, those with depend on those without to do the bulk of the deer harvest. If you doubt that simply look at the demographics of those who buy license to hunt deer!!
> 
> 
> You lost me.
> ...


*

Once again with the exception of a couple untis, all tags have been sold prior to hunting season. Those exceptions are in the areas I spoke of. So your theory is not valid.*


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

So the G&F experts are just letting the overpopulation happen, is that what you are saying? No matter which side of your mouth you speak from it doesn't change the facts. The fact is the G&F are in charge of managing the deer herd, the deer herd is way overpopulated. If I had to many cows for my pasture i would sell some cows. If the market crashed because everyone has to many cows well that's just the way it is in the real world.

I am going to agree to disagree with you Ron. But I appreciate your involvement. :beer:


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

Going off on a tangent here for just a bit, do any of you think Party Hunting would change any thing?

If 9 hunters go out with 7 tags and 7 deer of the correct species and sex get taken in the correct area is that bad? What is every one's take on this?
Would more deer be harvested this way?

I AM NOT SAYING WE SHOULD GO TO THIS, JUST ASKING FOR OPINIONS

Those of you who understand that access is the largest part of the problem are absolutely correct. Nothing G&F can do about it!!!


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

buckeye the point of the matter is this, free tags, reduced fee tags etc... will not and does not change the fact that the land in these units is not accessible for reasons and actions the G&F have no authority to control and will not now or in the future have short of being forced because of a disease outbreak like TB where they would go in and attempt to eradicate any and all deer in a given area.

You can attempt to make this a G&F issue, but over population is a result of access to the doe population. Free tags are not going to be filled off that property, nor would reduced tags. So tell me how is that the G&F fault?

My home area is pretty heavily posted, a lot of landowners or tenet's do not allow buck hunting, but do allow for does to be taken by numerous people. Hence the end result is that we have seen the overall population decrease which is evident by the fact that more of the does harvested are either young of the year or 1.5 year old. The exact thing the G&F told us would happen when we started to turn the corner on population levels. Now compare that to doe harvest in the problem regions and you will find if you asked the G&F through hunter feed back that mature does of 2.5 years and older are the norm. This if I am not mistaken was shown to be the case while collecting heads for testing and deer where aged.

So once again, buckeye how is the G&F management goals all about money and tell us how the G&F can force land to be opened to hunters under current law and also tell us if the Leg is going to grant the G&F the power to force landowners to allow hunting?


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

You talk about this as if it happened over night Ron, the deer population has been expanding for many years.

I think we all know access is the problem in some areas, but we also know that most if not all of the people who post land for bucks or dollars will let anyone shoot does. The problem is the feathers have been ruffled and the mighty sportsmen wont bow down to the landowner and go in when the time is right to let them in.

A combination of several of the seven deadly sins I guess, pride and greed are the dominators in sports.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

You are right, but look back over the past 8 years alone and you will see that this has been an on going issue and as a result one that short of G&F having the ablity to grant access cannot and will not be solved by issuing more tags.

So how could the G&F avoided the problem and how do they fix the current problem without cooperation from the landowners in that area?

Trust me I know a number of people that hunt in those areas and everyone of tells me the same thing. You have landowners who are very willing to allow hunting and do. Yet their efforts are stymied by the others who for a variety of reasons will not even for doe tags only!

To those who are making the effort, my hats off to them, but to place the blame on reduced harvest on the G&F is simply wrong at all levels!!!!!


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

All so true, at least they are local problems and not statewide.

I know around here all the Outfitters and landowners will let you shoot all the does you have tags for, as long as you are willing to hunt on their land when they say you can. You must have contact with the worst of the worst sorry to say. Good Luck with that!


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

> I know around here all the Outfitters and landowners will let you shoot all the does you have tags for, as long as you are willing to hunt on their land when they say you can.


Where do you live? Just general area. I think next hunting season we should call some people in your area and find out how true this is.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

laite319 said:


> > I know around here all the Outfitters and landowners will let you shoot all the does you have tags for, as long as you are willing to hunt on their land when they say you can.
> 
> 
> Where do you live? Just general area. I think next hunting season we should call some people in your area and find out how true this is.


Ill second that.

Most outfitter land I know of a guy gets an a$$ chewing just for slowing down to look at the deer in the field.

Ill agree, our biggest problem is land access.

I will also say though, lowering the price of the doe tag will result in more does being killed in our "problem units" where we cant get rid of our doe tags. I know at $10 a pop vs $20, ill be shooting TWICE as many does as cost of tags is the major limiting factor for me. I think alot of guys out there, instead of shooting a doe and buck, would very likely whack an extra doe if they were "2 for 1" on cost.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I will also say though, lowering the price of the doe tag will result in more does being killed in our "problem units" where we cant get rid of our doe tags. I know at $10 a pop vs $20, ill be shooting TWICE as many does as cost of tags is the major limiting factor for me.


I'm one of those old retired guy someone mentioned, and I would shoot more does at lower cost. It's crawling with deer where I hunt and I would have no problem shooting 20 in a day. I already shoot four or five. I would like to shoot a couple one week-end, a couple the next and so on to break up the butchering, but it's a $50 diesel bill to go back home and hunt another week-end. Cut my tag cost and I'll kill ten and give over half to those who could use some meat. I know people who can use it without going through the food bank. I like to give mine to college kids so they don't have to eat ramen noodles twice a day. I skin and debone then give it away. Last year the first two went into pepper stick and jerky. The second one I kept the backstrap, and the last I gave to a landowner who likes venison but doesn't hunt. When I was still working I gave at least two away to the students who worked for me part time.

Odd, but I always like to shoot long range. Last year I went to old calibers and my own cast bullets. I shot four does, and only one over 100 yards. Next year I want to get going early with a longbow.

I sure wish I had the money to help out more. 

All that said I think access is the biggest problem. I'm just lucky enough to have friends and relatives with large and multiple farms. I always hunt at home because it's as much a family reunion as a hunt.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Plainsman I would like to ask you about the places you hunt deer. Your comments intrigue me in regards to if there is issues of predidation and if access is adequate for non family and friends to help elevate the problem if one exists.

I ask this because just last year in 2g1 and 2g2 we heard from landowners that because of access the deer herd in the eastern portion of the units was below what the landowners themselves wanted to see and yet the G&F where issuing bonus tags for doe in those units. Through discussions and meetings, it became apparent that the hunters in those units could not gain access in the west and as a result to much pressure was applied in the areas that access was more readily available.

The end result was that the G&F having had poor success and hunter and landowner dissatisfaction of trying to split existing units or creating units within a unit for doe tags had little if any relief for this situation. So what happened is that to maintain herd numbers at or below landowner tolerance many who either posted and allowed hunting or did not post now where. Thus shrinking even more the land open to hunters.

That is why I guess I do not see price being that big a factor in harvest levels. Myself for example we took 4 deer this fall and I gave a lot of it away because if I cannot use it all or find someone that does, I have a hard time shooting a deer or duck or upland bird simply for the sake of shooting it.

Coyotes and skunks etc.. are the exception.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Plainsman I would like to ask you about the places you hunt deer. Your comments intrigue me in regards to if there is issues of predidation and if access is adequate for non family and friends to help elevate the problem if one exists.


There is a problem this winter. My brother-in-law has about 75 deer setting up house right in his yard. Some bed right next to the deck. Once he fills his gratis license he lets most who ask hunt. He doesn't even hold them back for the rest of the family.

There is one problem, and I reported that to the Game and Fish. An unlicensed guide has been talking many of the neighbors into posting tight. He has offered them $100 a deer they get on his property. At least that is what one of the landowners told me. However, he didn't get any money and I seen four at least shot on his property. The guy has also posted land after the landowner told him no. The landowner was ticked and asked if I wanted to hunt his farm. Heck I had more than I could hunt anyway, but I brought him a turkey at thanksgiving just for the offer.

Yes, everything is posted tight around my brother-in-laws. He is about the only person who lets people on. The huntable land closest to him is about three miles to the west, east, south, and double that to the north.

Yes access is a problem, but my friends and I would shoot a lot more deer with lower tag prices. So I guess both things are a problem, but access I think is the greater problem. I doubt if many people would be willing to shoot ten deer with cheaper tags like I would even if tags were cheaper and if they could get on land.

I hope you don't mind if I don't mention the unit. I have gone three years without a buck tag, and I don't want to make it four. 

I did buy one tag for 2J2 and tried with a longbow. No luck. I didn't have enough time to really try hard. I had some land all to myself. Well, after some guys tore down my cameras and drove across the landowners beans.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Thanks, that is really all I wanted to know, not what unit you are hunting. I can understand your caution as I had my first buck tag this fall since 02!

I do not have an answer for the access issue other than for us to push for accountability in regards to predidation issues. I still think that if a person is denying access and has predidation issues that we as sportsman should not foot the bill for fencing to protect his feed or if you are running a commercial operation baiting deer onto your property etc...

With this winter situation, I will be curious to see what the G&F will have in regards to number of new complaints and also how many re-occurring complaints come in and what they have to say in regards to how much access is being granted.

This always gets to be a touchy issue with them in their attempt to keep landowners as happy as possible but does at times make for some interesting advisory meeting!


----------



## flightbirds (Jun 25, 2004)

I had not been following this post until tonight. Very interesting. Seems like the tide has turned. I for on am rather bothered by landowners that manage their farms for big bucks, allow access for doe hunters only, and at the same time complain about excessive deer numbers. If you own land, post it, and manage for horns then it is your responsibility to manage the number of does on your land, not the G&F and not hunters.

I'll make landowners a deal: If you have too many does on your land, I'll come on your land and shoot 5 does if you allow me to fill my buck tag on your land!!!


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

A few things to remember.

The G&F has to manage game on a regional basis. They do not have the manpower to manage game even down to a county size area. The varying habitat in any given zone means that in many cases compromises have to be made in management decisions. The deer population may be 2 per sq mile on one end of a zone and 15 on the other. So which do you manage for? The comment was made that a rancher or farmer could do a better job of management than the G&F. That is true to some extent but only because of what was stated above. They are only managing their own limited area. Even so ,few, probably have the ability to envision long term effects of thier management practices.

Too many tags are too many tags. In several areas of the state there are still tags left at the end of season. Not because they cost too much but because there simply is no demand. You can't "force" demand for permits. Even offering to "giving" people permits is not going to help if they simply don't want or need it. I'ts probably safe to say that most hunters hunt in their home unit. They will get the number of permits they want or need and once that demand is met the most likely source for disposal of the extra tags might be those living outside those units. Often if travel is an issue those tags will go unused.I can't say I personally know anyone who has not gotten extra tags due to the cost. I have no doubt that if they were reduced in price or free that a few more tags would be issued but I'm not sure that would result in a significant increase in the harvest. I know many people that get extra tags and still don't use them all ,often by choice. The recent issue regarding the use of lead bullets in donated game has contributed to that. While I love deer hunting I can't use more than a couple or have anyone to give any to, so even if the tags were free I wouldn't take one.

Access, Access, Access. While when extra permits were first issued it was no problem getting on land just to hunt does that has also changed. Many landowners had no objection to allowing 1 or 2 does taken on their land during the season are now looking at the pressure caused by a dozen people wanting to take does off their land and how that will effect the large bucks on their property. In many cases dispite being overrun with does many will no longer allow them to be hunted for that reason. Under this scenario, when allowed, it is generally single hunters that are permitted to do so and rarely groups.

Large deer herds mean more work for the G&F whether it is direct management, depreciation claims, hunter land owner relations or whatever. All those things "cost " time, in addition to money from their budget. Costs and extra work they probably would be as happy without. All the money from extra permits is really doing is covering those extra costs. I doubt they are "making" any money. It's likely that the paperwork burden required to issue a tag is probably accounts for 1/2 or more of the cost of the tag.

This last item is a concern I heard at an advisory meeting this fall. The G&F is concerned that issuing reduced price or free tags will also increase an already unbalanced demand for buck tags. As it stands this has already become a problem. Because of the fact that one is nearly assured of getting a doe tag during the second and following draws, those hunters that were formerly "meat" hunters and prefered appling for doe tags are now applying for the buck tags for that "just in case" opportunity. I personally have received one buck tag in the last 5 years. While I had rarely missed one in the previous 20. FWIW I am more likely to get an extra tag and harvest a doe when I have a buck tag in hand that when I don't and I am sure there are others like me.

I respect our game managers. I don't always agree with them and they don't to a perfect job but overall the program is mostly successful. It's called "game management" not "game controlling" because the best you can do is manage factors you cannot control.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

dakotashooter2, Thanks for the post, you highlighted exactly what I have been saying.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

> Going off on a tangent here for just a bit, do any of you think Party Hunting would change any thing?


Nope... cause it is already has been going on, quite extensively, for years. It's not enforced unless someone is caught in the act and it has to be pretty flagrant to be caught and/or prosecuted.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

> Nope... cause it is already has been going on, quite extensively, for years. It's not enforced unless someone is caught in the act and it has to be pretty flagrant to be caught and/or prosecuted.


So doesn't that make all people in that group lawbreakers, you should turn each other in so the Wardens can watch you guys for awhile. Then you can buy each other beer with the RAP money.

Are you in ND? We all shoot our own deer around here. Why the hell would I want someone to shoot my deer for me... That would be like having another man have sex with your wife if you couldn't.

I could see after I was old and couldn't hunt/have sex I would probably be appreciative if someone had sex with my 80 year old wife, but stay the hell away from my deer!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

I have been lurking and watching this thread with interest for a bit.

This was an awesome spot on reply in most respects dakotashooter

A couple points I'd like to offer..



dakotashooter2 said:


> A few things to remember.
> 
> The G&F has to manage game on a regional basis. They do not have the manpower to manage game even down to a county size area. The varying habitat in any given zone means that in many cases compromises have to be made in management decisions. The deer population may be 2 per sq mile on one end of a zone and 15 on the other. So which do you manage for? The comment was made that a rancher or farmer could do a better job of management than the G&F. That is true to some extent but only because of what was stated above. They are only managing their own limited area. Even so ,few, probably have the ability to envision long term effects of thier management practices.


I've always been curious as to whether the Game & Fish could look at reducing the size of units for does. I have somewhat had this debate with Game & Fish directly in the past, and understand you might not want to change the current unit boundaries for bucks, as it might actually make getting a buck tag tougher, however for does I think it might work.

Reason being that we need to manage does closer in specific high concentration areas that need management focus to reduce the herd in specific areas. G&F knows exactly where they have specific pinpoint problems every year, and if we created "sub" units to harvest a doe, we'd be able to pinpoint harvest does down to bring the population into better balance.

Thoughts?



dakotashooter2 said:


> Too many tags are too many tags. In several areas of the state there are still tags left at the end of season.


If you implemented my idea above, it would force guys to shoot a doe in "problem areas" of the unit, and not necessarily where they shot their buck. If guys had to shoot a doe in a really small defined area, It is likely to reduce the # of tags left over. Currently G&F has to extra a slightly higher # of tags for a given unit for does, to ensure a high enough harvest rate to have an intended reduction effect.



dakotashooter2 said:


> Not because they cost too much but because there simply is no demand. You can't "force" demand for permits. Even offering to "giving" people permits is not going to help if they simply don't want or need it. I'ts probably safe to say that most hunters hunt in their home unit. They will get the number of permits they want or need and once that demand is met the most likely source for disposal of the extra tags might be those living outside those units. Often if travel is an issue those tags will go unused.I can't say I personally know anyone who has not gotten extra tags due to the cost. I have no doubt that if they were reduced in price or free that a few more tags would be issued but I'm not sure that would result in a significant increase in the harvest.


I'm going to have to disagree with you on this in one key area. I've talked about this issue before and it directly affects me. As someone who lived in ND for 30+ years, and now lives in WA, I'm forced to pay $60 for a second drawing doe license if I want to come home and hunt with my family.

An idea to increase doe tag purchases, would be to amend the cost of a second unit doe tag for Non Resident hunters. My idea would only apply to second or third drawings.

To me this is a win win for everyone involved.

As a real world example, I am someone who comes back to North Dakota each fall to hunt as a former native son. I'm fully willing to pay full NR price for my first drawing tag just like everyone else. In fact as an NR my tag is $220 if first drawing is successful, and I am perfectly fine with that. However I believe being forced to pay $60 for a second doe tag is ridiculous.

If ND G&F and the ND legislature would consider that there is a very high likelihood that anyone looking to buy a second drawing doe tag, is looking to go hunting with family, is coming in from out of state to do it, and is obviously dedicated to getting a license as they have applied once already and been denied a first drawing tag.

It frustrates me that simply because I am an NR, that I am being dinged for extra $$ for a tag, when residents who have ample opportunity & time to get multiple tags for $20 a pop. If ND G&F is truly serious about reducing deer herds with 2nd/3rd choice tags, then why not reduce the costs of those tags for NR's willing to come back into the state, spend $$, and harvest a doe with their family?

I've decided to not even bother buying a late tag, even though in the past, I've been back in the state visiting family and bird hunting, had the time and opportunity to purchase one, and didn't on principal. I simply will not pay $60 to go shoot a lousy doe, when I go out on the roads at night, run one over and pay a $20 carcass tag (kidding of course) In this example the game and fish had someone (me) willing, to purchase an extra tag, had the time, $$, and interest, but did not due to the unfair cost of a 3rd drawing tag.

Thoughts?



dakotashooter2 said:


> This last item is a concern I heard at an advisory meeting this fall. The G&F is concerned that issuing reduced price or free tags will also increase an already unbalanced demand for buck tags. As it stands this has already become a problem. Because of the fact that one is nearly assured of getting a doe tag during the second and following draws, those hunters that were formerly "meat" hunters and prefered appling for doe tags are now applying for the buck tags for that "just in case" opportunity. I personally have received one buck tag in the last 5 years. While I had rarely missed one in the previous 20. FWIW I am more likely to get an extra tag and harvest a doe when I have a buck tag in hand that when I don't and I am sure there are others like me.


This is indeed the very scenario that is happening. If they want to figure out a solution I have one. They can implement one or all of the following scenarios.

One, they can implement my idea from above about implementing targeted "doe management" areas. If they make the 2nd/3rd drawing doe tags valid only in narrowly defined zones, those looking to carry an extra doe tag with them, won't be able to use it without being in that area, thereby reducing the problem you note above. Guys who normally only get a doe tag with their first drawing, and want to ensure that they can hunt in their "home stomping grounds" will need to make sure they use their first drawing application on a doe tag in their preferred unit, as if they are denied they will need to apply for a second unit tag in the doe mgmt areas, and maybe not anywhere near their home grounds.

Second, they could take the bulk of the second and third tag drawings, and implement a second doe mgmt season, that would run for 2 weeks after the 1st gun season ends. This would further reduce those who are buying extra doe tags, plus competing for the bucks tags when maybe they wouldnt normally.

Third as a suggestion, they could implement a law change that mandated that 2nd/3rd tags for does had to be for a unit other than their 1st choice unit. This would only apply those who were successful in their 1st drawing. This idea would still allow unsuccessful applicants to apply for a tag in the same unit, but force those looking to "carry both a doe and buck" tag to have to go actually hunt specifically for that animal, and not make it appealing to try a strategy of carrying tags for both sexes. This would also solve many of the issues you raised above.

I really believe that some version of the above would solve many of the challenges we currently face with existing rules.

Your Thoughts?



dakotashooter2 said:


> I respect our game managers. I don't always agree with them and they don't to a perfect job but overall the program is mostly successful. It's called "game management" not "game controlling" because the best you can do is manage factors you cannot control.


I agree completely! We do need to constantly look at trying to make the stated management goals feasible, and given that harvest factors are also changing over time, we need to be flexible and suggest tweaks and improvements to achieve those goals

Ryan


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

> I simply will not pay $60 to go shoot a lousy doe


 :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll:

Sorry, you asked for thoughts!!!!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> If guys had to shoot a doe in a really small defined area, It is likely to reduce the # of tags left over.


I think that defies the laws of human nature. Any time you add another restriction to any activity you loose a percentage of participants. I personally will buy four extra doe tags every year. I would buy ten if they were cheaper. I set a camper in my brother-in-laws pasture. If I step out the door ten times I will see deer within range half the time. Why would I spend gas to drive to another place to shoot my doe? I would buy no extra doe tags if I have to travel. I have a place to hunt where I know all the neighbors, and I am uncomfortable asking someone I don't know to hunt. I like to hunt, but I also like to be where relatives and friends, who I only see once a years, stop by for cookies and coffee. If there were very few deer there and thousands of doe permits in the next unit over I would still hunt where I am now I just would buy no extra permits. To most people in North Dakota deer hunting is much more than just hunting. Restrictive smaller units will surely result in more doe tags left over.

I may support dropping the price for residents, but deer herds unlike migrating waterfowl are a product of our state, and I would not drop the price for non-resident. My son lived in Arizona for a while, and if you choose to live out of state for higher salaries, paying non-resident hunting fees is just one of the things you have to expect. My nephews and nieces are out of state, but they know what they will need to spend to hunt. Some will buy a doe only just to come home to hunt.

I'm sure our game and fish is fully aware of all these scenarios. As a matter of fact I know the big game biologist and he is competent in statistics and also has statistical support. They have the management options covered, all they need to know is what the people of North Dakota want. Do we want a chance at a buck every other year and shoot smaller bucks, or do we want a chance at larger bucks and a license every four years. If does are a problem maybe it's our attitudes that are the problem not the game and fish management or awareness.

For those of you who want to manage for big bucks, it's not the game and fish you have to convince it's your felllow hunters. The game and fish will respond to the majority of hunters.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Ryan you have been following this thread, then you should have seen the reference to the failed attempts to do this in a couple units in the SE part of the state. First, it did not increase sales nor did it reduce population levels. The key factor remains access to the lands where the deer are present. Without that, as you may well understand free tags are not going to accomplish anything.

Like it or not, the G&F do not have the ablity to make a landowner open his land and without that participation it becomes futile.

These are not new ideas, and in population problem areas, they get discussed heavily at the advisory meetings. However it never hurts to re-visit an idea!


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

So far ive heard alot of complicated ideas for a simple problem.

Make the doe tags cheaper where the population is a problem! Its SO simple its scary!

Make the $20 doe tag a 2 for 1 tag! The state still gets its revenue, and the hunter can shoot 2 does!


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

Bareback where are the hunters going to shoot those cheaper does? I would be willing to bet that there is no overpopulation of deer on the tracts of public land.


----------



## bretts (Feb 24, 2004)

Swift, you are very correct on that statement. I still think outfitters should be capped on the amount of land they lease for hunting, I still think we need the earn a buck law, you must shoot a doe first, then you get to shoot a buck. Many of these land owners want the biggest deer on their land but don't realize your doe population must be in check to produce larger deer. I would like to see the state get more aggressive to free up more state land, but I would like to see them promote QDM also. QDM is not all about growing the biggest bucks, a huge part of it is keeping does in check. I say we send Plainsman to office to shake things up, and look out for the hunter!


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

> I would be willing to bet that there is no overpopulation of deer on the tracts of public land.


The more I read on this issue in ND it keeps leading me to the idea that the non-landowning hunters just don't want to ask permission. Anyone who cares knows that the weather has been awesome for the wildlife for the past 10 years, excluding this winter of course. The population explosion in the whitetail curtails around the weather more than anything.

If someone has names of people who absolutely deny hunting on their land and also have a year round over population of does on their land, I would like to give them a call and ask permission to kill a doe for next season. I dare somebody to give me a name to call!! PM or whatever just let me call!! :sniper:


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

buckseye said:


> If someone has names of people who absolutely deny hunting on their land and also have a year round over population of does on their land, I would like to give them a call and ask permission to kill a doe for next season. I dare somebody to give me a name to call!! PM or whatever just let me call!! :sniper:


PM sent buckseye.

I'm sure everyone can give you 2-3 names. The first one on my list is notorious for posting, and then calling G&F to ask for depredation payments.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

swift said:


> Bareback where are the hunters going to shoot those cheaper does? I would be willing to bet that there is no overpopulation of deer on the tracts of public land.


Probably not, but theres still more than enough of em.

Land access IS an issue, im not debating that. But I dont think guys are really making an effort to get on private land. I know I knock on new doors EVERY fall. I get turned down on some, and get on some (and this is in a VERY key area, LOTS of good bucks, access is generally tough, but I still get on new stuff every year). If your not making an effort to get on the private land, than I dont feel sorry for you when you complain the only place to hunt is public land.

Land access is an issue in population control, but a bigger issue is the un-willingness of ALOT of guys out there to take more than one doe. Im sorry, but shooting one doe and one buck each year isnt doing JACK for herd management.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

> The first one on my list is notorious for posting, and then calling G&F to ask for depredation payments


Ryan thanks for the list. These aren't people you have a personal beef with are they? I will call them and let you know what they say.

But first have you ever asked his permission to hunt his land, or is this second hand information? Or just because it's posted you don't bother asking? The more I know about him when I call the better chance I have of getting permission to be on his land and shoot a doe.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

buckseye said:


> > The first one on my list is notorious for posting, and then calling G&F to ask for depredation payments
> 
> 
> Ryan thanks for the list. These aren't people you have a personal beef with are they? I will call them and let you know what they say.
> ...


Hey buckseye

Just saw this. I replied to your PM.

I have no beef with anyone in that list. I haven't spoken to any of them in over 4 years. Prior to that I asked permission from the first 2 names in 2003 for a first time girl deer hunter who was going to be the only hunter with a gun. The third name my father and I asked permission multiple times on different years between 1998 and 2003.

We now deer hunt in an entirely different unit.

My relatives still hunt that unit and can verify that it still happens.

My longer reply in the PM's should answer your remaining question I hope? If not PM a reply and I'll get back to you again. I'd love to see someone/anyone get permission from the first 3. Although I'll doubt if it will happen.

Good luck! :thumb:


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Thanks Ryan, I like the info you are giving me. I will let you know what happens.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Ryan, I could give you a list too. I know one guy who likes to post his land about 11:00am opening day. One time one of my friends was sitting on an approach and the guy showed up and pounded a sign right in front of his vehicle. When my friend asked him about hunting he wouldn't even talk, just smiled. 
This type of guy is out there, and yes the one I mentioned complains about deer. He lives close to a refuge and on the two sections his house is on he had maybe 500 deer one year. He patrolled it like a dog in a kennel. Around and around looking for anyone that might step on his dirt. You can't hunt on his land, he will not let you do photography, he will not let you step on it. His wife told me personally "we don't let anyone on our land especially hunters" when I asked to photograph after deer season. 
His farm is mostly nice rich soil. I often wonder how he got his into CRP. Maybe it helps being a legislator. 

If anyone wants his name I can give it to you, but your going to have to dig him up if you want to talk with him now.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Ill also add, on the access issue. Its the "younger" landowners that in my experience, are the a$$es about it. And no, I dont mean being an a$$ and not letting me in, thats their right as the owner, im talking about the guy that says no, than proceeds to chew you out for asking.

If I knock on the door, and its someone my fathers age or older, im usually in, but be prepared to chat a spell. If its a younger guy, closer to my generation, the odds drop.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Holy Crap! I didn't even know that Ron was impressed enough to start this thread till just now!! I guess I'll just have to say what I said before. Maybe Ron can read it as slow as I type so he gets it right this time. As I said before I don't deny there are some a$$hole landowners just as there are a$$hole sportsman, and as I said before as well one typically causes the other and vice versa, and I can understand why Ron seems to run into more of them than most. Also as I stated before the ONLY way the depredation tag works is if you let people in to shoot the does!!!!!!!!!!!!! The fact is in most units many of the doe tags go unused even if they are purchased. The depredation system allows me to find people I trust that will actually shoot these does to come into the areas where the deer are congregating which Ron refers to as areas that are posted for safety reasons such as the trees(habitat) we've planted around my backyard and where my cattle are located. Areas which up until about 5 years ago were the only land we posted. I guess maybe I'm an a$$hole landowner for wanting to know the people walking around these areas with a high powered rifle. Once again for the slow folks, depredation tags only work if you allow access!!!!!!!!!!! Once again additional forms of population control are only a small part of the puzzle!!!!I can guarantee that the people I would give these doe tags to would be happy to get them for free and would actually shoot these does. If anyone thinks party hunting is not happening in ND wake up. The G&F is just getting 20$ for it. Those "extra" doe tags people get so they can keep carrying a rifle now allow this to happen relatively unchecked. The reason the doe tags are not being used in some areas is simply because the numbers have increase beyond the amount that deer hunters are willing to shoot. A 20$ tag is nothing compared to the bill if you don't process your own deer. As I just said in another thread EVERYONE has to accept responsiblity for the population problem we are dealing with right now! What EFFECTIVE new methods have the G&F implemented to reduce pop.? The only thing that has worked in our area was the year they held an antlerless only season imediately following muzzleloader season.Much like this year the deer had started to yard up and most landowners were more than happy to allow people in to shoot does. We had over 50 does shot out of our yard that year by hunters during this extended season. Why did this only happen one time? The early season hunts they are now trying are ineffective due to standing crops, timing, and weather. How many people want to shoot a deer when it's 70 or 80 degrees out. So please give me examples of how the G&F are doing anything new and effective in their part to reduce pop. Between our land and a relatives land adjoining ours we had over 25 does and over 10 bucks shot this year by several different people most of whom were not family trying to do our part.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

gst,

Do you get Nodak E-Tree Messages? I'll pm one.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

I guess I got so surprised to see that after only being on this site for less than a month I had a thread dedicated to me!!! Wow I don't know if I should be honored or pi$$ed!! Ron I really didn't "run away" I just hadn't found this thread till last nite. I read thru it so fast I missed a couple of things that maybe should be pointed out. The G&F after admitting they had a pop. problem, has been trying to get back to the goal of 70,000 tags for at least 6 years and in each of these years have SOLD a progressively larger numbers of tags till they have reached 140,000(G&F figures) this year. That's a several year period of failing to accomplish their stated goal. My suggestion was and still is TRY SOMETHING NEW!!!!!!! The G&F actually have a bit of leeway to try different programs. Ron if you can post a copy of or link to the G&F's deer herd management plan and goals, if there is one it was only implemented lately. 
The access issue can not always but often times be tied directly to attitudes and statements like the one by Ron"I do not have an answer for the access issue other than for us to push for accountability in regards to depridation issues" Wow. How about trying actually meeting, asking, establishing relationships with landowners and see where that gets people wanting access instead of pushing more regulations down the landowners throat. Terry Stienwand was right I guess when he stated at the NDSA convention this year something to the effect they see a problem with an increasing number of sportsmen who want opportunities regulated for them rather than going out and establishing the relationships that make for long term hunting opportunities. Oh crap, the wifes right, here I am back argueing with Ron, maybe I do just like to argue. This time I do have to "run" calving has started so I'll have to leave it up to Ron to solve all these issues on his own. Good luck!!!


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Just so you guys know, I am going to apply for a doe tag in the Unit the top person on the list is in. When I get a doe tag I will drive over there and ask the gentleman if he has a spare moment so I can show him my doe tag and ask permission to fill it according to his instructions as to when and where on his property I may be able to do that. Any bets??


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

buckseye said:


> Just so you guys know, I am going to apply for a doe tag in the Unit the top person on the list is in. When I get a doe tag I will drive over there and ask the gentleman if he has a spare moment so I can show him my doe tag and ask permission to fill it according to his instructions as to when and where on his property I may be able to do that. Any bets??


Geez, why don't you ask him to bend over so you can ....

Nevermind! :eyeroll:


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

> buckseye wrote:
> Just so you guys know, I am going to apply for a doe tag in the Unit the top person on the list is in. When I get a doe tag I will drive over there and ask the gentleman if he has a spare moment so I can show him my doe tag and ask permission to fill it according to his instructions as to when and where on his property I may be able to do that. Any bets??
> 
> *Geez, why don't you ask him to bend over so you can ....
> ...


Thanks huntin.... that right there is the rotten attitude we are having so much trouble with these days. uke:


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

buckseye,

I am extremely courtious and respectful to landowners. I don't really have too many problems getting on land.

I don't think it's necessary to bend over backwards in order to kill a doe on someone's land!


----------

