New MN Bowhunters Association

[Wind Gypsy]

anyone got any intel on this new org? Seems like just a MDHA branch since the board directors is made up of MDHA employees and they reference having access to the MDHA lobbyist. Which is odd because MDHA generally takes stances on the opposite side from what most state bowhunting advocacy orgs do.

 

[mntatonka]

It's partnered with MDHA, but as it grows can and will have different membership and eventually different directors. I can't say I agree with how they started it and jumping on MDHA's name, but that's a discussion that will definitely come up at MDHA's annual state meeting this weekend. However, as far as I know, they don't get any direct funding from MDHA, other than articles/advertising in the magazine.

And I certainly wouldn't say MDHA takes an opposite stance of most bowhunters, considering the majority of MDHA members are also bowhunters.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

It's partnered with MDHA, but as it grows can and will have different membership and eventually different directors. I can't say I agree with how they started it and jumping on MDHA's name, but that's a discussion that will definitely come up at MDHA's annual state meeting this weekend. However, as far as I know, they don't get any direct funding from MDHA, other than articles/advertising in the magazine.

And I certainly wouldn't say MDHA takes an opposite stance of most bowhunters, considering the majority of MDHA members are also bowhunters.

I wouldn’t think the majority of bow hunters want crossbows in archery season. It’s one of the primary stances that most bowhunter groups take. MDHA is one of the primary reasons there are crossbows in archery season now.

Generally, most bowhunter groups advocate for the resource. Generally, MDHA seems to be in favor of anything that makes it easier to kill deer.

 

[Bonasababy]

The issue I see with some bowhunting orgs is demanding changes to current season frameworks. One I think is understandable--the legislatures late session no public hearing change to allow crossbows for everyone for the whole season. The other is they want the rifle deer season moved out of the early november prime rut season so they can have it all to themselves.

I used to be a member and they still do some good things but MDHA has gotten further from reality on many issues in recent years and gone extreme on some. Not sure where this new Bow Org intends to sit.

 

[mntatonka]

The issue I see with some bowhunting orgs is demanding changes to current season frameworks. One I think is understandable--the legislatures late session no public hearing change to allow crossbows for everyone for the whole season. The other is they want the rifle deer season moved out of the early november prime rut season so they can have it all to themselves.

I used to be a member and they still do some good things but MDHA has gotten further from reality on many issues in recent years and gone extreme on some. Not sure where this new Bow Org intends to sit.

The crossbow bill went through the public hearings in the Environment/Natural resource committees, and was then included in the Omnibus bill and passed through conference committee, which had a ton of meetings, and testimony was allowed in many of them. This wasn't the late session rule change crap that happened in 2024.


I am curious what issues MDHA is "extreme" on though?

I wouldn’t think the majority of bow hunters want crossbows in archery season. It’s one of the primary stances that most bowhunter groups take. MDHA is one of the primary reasons there are crossbows in archery season now.

Generally, most bowhunter groups advocate for the resource. Generally, MDHA seems to be in favor of anything that makes it easier to kill deer.

It's not about being easier, it's about expanding opportunity and getting more people in the woods, especially kids.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

It's not about being easier, it's about expanding opportunity and getting more people in the woods, especially kids.

Same/Same unless the increased opportunity doesn't make it easier to kill a deer but thats never the direction they go. Archery from mid sept through the end of the year, rifle during the peak of the rut, and muzzle loader with scopes and smokeless powder, early youth season, early doe season, and CWD seasons ensure there is no shortage of opportunity. Keep making it easier and easier to kill deer and the opportunity that matters (access to land with high odds of deer encounters) is only going to get less and less as people are more incentivized to buy the quality hunting that the endless opportunity prevents.

The issue I see with some bowhunting orgs is demanding changes to current season frameworks...... The other is they want the rifle deer season moved out of the early november prime rut season so they can have it all to themselves.

I'm sure there are some that "want it all to themselves" but most just want deer to have a chance to live a few years. I'm pretty weapon agnostic but have archery, firearm, and muzzleloader tags most years. If the season got moved back a week or two i'd give up being able to hunt at all during that period if it meant a higher chance of having mature bucks on the landscape.

I don't think there's a chance the MN season structure/dates change anytime soon with the exception of just making it easier yet to kill deer. Especially as CWD expands and they open it up to shooting more. I see very little hope for things improving in most of MN - odds just keep slanting against deer. Beyond a few mild winters possibly helping deer #'s in the NE, i dont see most of the state trending towards the better. Maybe in some regions more farmers using cover crops will help in the winters?

 

[Ringbill27]

Beyond a few mild winters possibly helping deer #'s in the NE, i dont see most of the state trending towards the better. Maybe in some regions more farmers using cover crops will help in the winters?

It can’t really get any worse here in the NE. No deer to even get CWD here.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

It can’t really get any worse here in the NE. No deer to even get CWD here.

Didn’t stop them from opening regs north of Grand Rapids because some city deer tested positive.

 

[mntatonka]

Didn’t stop them from opening regs north of Grand Rapids because some city deer tested positive.

Which didn't really change the harvest for that DPA.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

Which didn't really change the harvest for that DPA.

Buck harvest has remained pretty steady, hunting has degraded quite a bit up there though. First year after the change which was following the severe '21/'22 winter which hurt deer population numbers, total harvest was up 32%. Female harvest was up 213%.

 

[Bonasababy]

Didn’t stop them from opening regs north of Grand Rapids because some city deer tested positive.

Should be glad they did! Helping to limit the spread and it getting worse. See the WI research in another thread--CWD has population level impacts on deer, high percentage of them get infected, limits the ability of bucks to get older and mature--if WI had followed MN's more aggressive approach they'd be in far better shape today.

 

[Bonasababy]

Buck harvest has remained pretty steady, hunting has degraded quite a bit up there though. First year after the change which was following the severe '21/'22 winter which hurt deer population numbers, total harvest was up 32%. Female harvest was up 213%.

I didn't double check those numbers, but lets be fair--if you go from no doe permits or very limited doe permits to a liberal season, of course antlerless harvest is going to to go up. Going from a few antlerless harvested to dozens isn't any indication of any broad population level declines.

 

[Bonasababy]

It can’t really get any worse here in the NE. No deer to even get CWD here.

You are getting a good winter. Depending on where you are and how low the population is you'll need more than that though. Some places there's been a double whammy of tough winters and significant loss of wintering cover due to aggressive logging--the cover takes decades to come back, if the land managers even allow that.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

I didn't double check those numbers, but lets be fair--if you go from no doe permits or very limited doe permits to a liberal season, of course antlerless harvest is going to to go up. Going from a few antlerless harvested to dozens isn't any indication of any broad population level declines.

They werent that limited before and 1626 females isn’t “dozens”.

 

[Treeshark]

Some places there's been a double whammy of tough winters and significant loss of wintering cover due to aggressive logging--the cover takes decades to come back, if the land managers even allow that.

More logging= less winter cover/lower deer populations?

In my experience, areas with more aggressive logging generally hold quite a few more deer.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

More logging= less winter cover/lower deer populations?

In my experience, areas with more aggressive logging generally hold quite a few more deer.

Definitely more browse. They claim the lack of mature white cedar has removed a bunch of historical thermal cover in northern MN but other than that, more logging=more whitetail habitat in many cases.

 

[Ringbill27]

More logging= less winter cover/lower deer populations?

In my experience, areas with more aggressive logging generally hold quite a few more deer.

That seems to be what I’ve seen as well. You have to hunt the clear cuts and regens to find deer. I wouldn’t call the logging aggressive.

 

[Bonasababy]

What's limiting in winter isn't food...it's cover. That is the issue limiting deer recovery in much of the far northern part of the state. Not talking north as in north of the twin cities....north of Duluth and Grand Rapids. Some places...the extreme NE arrowhead for example..could see benefits from more logging, but Timber markets and loggers aren't there to support it right now.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

Saw Rothstein in the latest outdoor news is complaining about how unfair all of the other destination states are being about cutting back NR opportunities. Maybe there would be less desire to go hunt whitetails elsewhere if we managed them better at home. It's not SD, KS, NE, IA, MO, etc's responsibility to offer quality hunting to minnesotans because we don't take care of it at home.

 

[huskyhunter]

Saw Rothstein in the latest outdoor news is complaining about how unfair all of the other destination states are being about cutting back NR opportunities. Maybe there would be less desire to go hunt whitetails elsewhere if we managed them better at home. It's not SD, KS, NE, IA, MO, etc's responsibility to offer quality hunting to minnesotans because we don't take care of it at home.

Totally agree with this. One thing I do wish we would do to NRs is jack up the NR fishing license cost. It's almost highway robbery what they pay to fish for an entire year here.