Was the deer herd thinned too much?

[harvey lee]

My guess on why they increase the doe tags every season depends on the herd size.

If they did not reduce the doe herd size on the years when it is high, the insurance companies and farmers would have costly results.

I would also guess disease could also factor into a large herd size.

I have seen the damage deer can do to a corn field when the numbers get high.

If we are to then say we will pay the farmers for all the damage to thier crops to keep the herd higher, who would kick in the extra funds for that cost?

Then if we kept the herd size above the carring capacity of the land, the bad winters would starve a ton anyways.

I do not know what the answer is nor will I ever.

It's different in a way with todays harvesting results from years ago.

Many years ago were happt with 1 deer and nowadays, so many want a sure thing or numerous deer.

I also like when I can harvest numerous deer but i do not believe that has to happen.

I believe many times we get spoiled with those high herd counts as we get use to seeing many deer on one outing. Then when it goes down to normal or a little less, we think the sky is falling.

The DNR can only keep so many of the hunters happy along with the insurance companies and the crop farmers.

Maybe we all have to do a better job of policing ourselves when the herd has reach the lower end to let it rebound a bit faster.

[96trigger]

Harvey,

I agree with you on almost everything. but I don't know if you understood what I was getting at. It seems like we go to extremes in our population, and maybe there are too many outside factors to even try and comprehend, but there are obviously issues when areas go from 5 deer to 1 deer. My question is why is there such a big jump between managed and intensive harvest for deer tags. Why is FIVE the number. It just seems like a very big jump, it more than doubles the number of deer taken. It just seems excessive to me. Why shouldn't 3 be the number for intensive harvest, especially if few people even take 3, and even less take 4 or 5. With cross tagging of management tags, why the need for 5 tags. It just seems like when the population is high, we feel like we have to reduce it right now and we can't adjust things gradually.

I also know of a couple of large groups of hunters that had a down year, but they have not been able to regulate themselves in the number of deer taken. Three years ago it was 20 deer, two years 15, last year under 10 and they complained. I don't get how they couldn't figure out why.

[Musky Buck]

45 deer trigger in 3 years is quite a few, same where I'm at the tags were available and whether most were even tagged who knows but now it's what happened well um they didn't evaporate, there were in our area way fewer does having fawns last may/june and if they did like many a farmer wonders about the heavy coyote population at present time, if does were stressed they could've dropped 1 or both of what would've been fawns. I've had people give me grief, you don't shoot does so you're not helping the herd, I don't feel 1 gun vs 478,000 of us, I think there's plenty of people in the areas I hunt taking plenty if not more does than they should, if that wasn't happening the areas I hunt wouldn't have this low of a population at present time. We'll be ok. It's an up and down thing.

[reinhard1]

i've hunted the same place since the 60's. it is public land but it seems like ours since we are the only ones that ever hunts there. its north of Duluth. all those years we have never filled out. however the last 3 years we have had what we consider good luck for the four of us. 3 out of 4 each year until this year we had 2 out of 4. we still concider that good in comparison to the decades we have hunted there.

we are right on the border and inside the intensive. i contribute to the better results on average to the logging that took place 4 years ago. they are logging all around us now as well here and there. so i think we will have similiar results this year. i always buy one extra tag. never had to use it. i didnt see any difference in the last few years. the first weekend was pretty windy and maby we could have done better. good luck.

[zepman]

96...I agree on the 5 deer intensive areas. That's just plain excessive. I was glad to see 348 go to a managed zone...way too many years of pounding EVERYTHING over there.

[muskiemanAD]

My area was a 5 deer intensive deer area for the last few years. We have a group that hunts 5 people on a 80 next to us. They average 15 deer a year the last 3 to 4 years. I have also noticed that their meat pole consists of their 4 to 5 antlered deer along with another 4 to 5 button bucks. This last year they shot one antlered buck and a handful of button along with their doe. They wonder where are the deer went....... The antler point restriction was a blessing for us with these Cowboys hunting next to us.

[Musky Buck]

For some it's numbers and getting shooting in and for some it's more the experience than the kill. I hunt 4 areas and 3 of 4 it's numbers and shooting and the good area it's the experience and trying to fool,figure out, cross paths with a mature buck.

[harvey lee]

Harvey,

I agree with you on almost everything. but I don't know if you understood what I was getting at. It seems like we go to extremes in our population, and maybe there are too many outside factors to even try and comprehend, but there are obviously issues when areas go from 5 deer to 1 deer. My question is why is there such a big jump between managed and intensive harvest for deer tags. Why is FIVE the number. It just seems like a very big jump, it more than doubles the number of deer taken. It just seems excessive to me. Why shouldn't 3 be the number for intensive harvest, especially if few people even take 3, and even less take 4 or 5. With cross tagging of management tags, why the need for 5 tags. It just seems like when the population is high, we feel like we have to reduce it right now and we can't adjust things gradually.

I also know of a couple of large groups of hunters that had a down year, but they have not been able to regulate themselves in the number of deer taken. Three years ago it was 20 deer, two years 15, last year under 10 and they complained. I don't get how they couldn't figure out why.

I would agree that 3 would seem to be plenty. May be a great question to ask St Paul or Lou.

Some cannot figure it out as all they are concerned about it what they can shoot today and do no0t worry about the future.

Future comes and they whine as they do not get to whack 5 deer or maybe even 1.

[Gordie]

I think the do the 5 deer so that will entice more hunters to the area that need the INTENSIVE harvest and they put those numbers up after doing the surveys of the deer herds and how they can best manage it and that's a number that seems to work for them.

Future comes and they whine as they do not get to whack 5 deer or maybe even 1.

Its either quality or quantity you will never satisfy everyone and you know as well as I do the medium ground is just not ever going to happen.

[harvey lee]

Quality is not by biggest concern to me at least in this topic.

Quantity is. Or shall I say the ups and down of the herd size.

I am very fortunate where I hunt as our neighbors do not overharvest doe's. So as long as we watch what we harvest according to the herd size and mix we can control those numbers a bit.

That's why this fall, I decided to not harvest a doe in ND on the land we have. Approx 12-13 years ago the herd was at a minimum and we decided to noy even hunt there. Probably thre first time my dad did not hunt deer in 5o+ years but we did not want to hurt the herd anymore than it had already been hurt from the previous winter.

One has to watch what they harvest if one wants good hunting from year to year hopefully. I personally do not like missing a hunt but in the long haul, it is best for future years.

[deerminator]

What I would like to know - and no one's producing numbers on - is just how big the "slaughter" was in intensive areas. Sure you could kill 5 deer but how many did versus those who took one or two? Just read a good article in Deer and Deer Hunting asking, with declining hunter numbers and abundant deer numbers, do we really even need bag limits any more? They cited Virgina and the possibility to take 156 deer in a season there per hunter as an example. On average, Virginia hunters took just 1.6 deer per season, 140 some less than they could have. The article went on to say that often these days seasons and bag limits are set more so for "social reasons," versus management. Another article I found of interest was on the relationship between wolves and coyotes in in country where they coexist. In any case, it mentioned that a "healthy" wolf will kill and eat an average of 15 deer per year. I'd be more worried about the wolves if they were in my area!

[certified jumbo]

Interesting Deerminator.

1 healthy wolf = roughly 15 deer a year.

3000 wolf times 15 deer = 45000 deer a year.

I agree, this isn't helping the situation.

[goblueM]

Interesting Deerminator.

1 healthy wolf = roughly 15 deer a year.

3000 wolf times 15 deer = 45000 deer a year.

I agree, this isn't helping the situation.

and that's only in wolf country, which further compounds the issue. I've never been a big "we gotta get rid of the wolves, they are eating all the deer" guy, but they are certainly having an impact.

I'm wondering if the DNR is thinning the herd in the north because of moose-management goals?

[Jeff13]

Has the DNR decided on a wolf hunt yet? I was checking out with some grocieries last night and there was an outdoor news up there and I thought it said something about a wolf hunt?

[lakevet]

Wolves as a factor rank far behind us hunters (esp with liberal limits and options to go anywhere in state, multiple seasons/weapons,etc,etc) and old man winter. Enjoy having wolves around, my family has coexisted with them for over 100 years both as farmers and hunters, and I do believe in managing them for variety of reasons. Those who are anchored to hunting a certain stand /food plot or 40 acre piece in wolf country can potentially experience "didn't see a single deer" type seasons. We expected a tougher muzzleloader hunt due to bad rifle season reports and an uptick in wolves in our area. However we were pleasantly surprised at the good number of deer in our area. They were not moving on their own much and in very specific areas. Hunting from a stand would have been very low success.

lakevet

[muskiemanAD]

What I would like to know - and no one's producing numbers on - is just how big the "slaughter" was in intensive areas. Sure you could kill 5 deer but how many did versus those who took one or two? Just read a good article in Deer and Deer Hunting asking, with declining hunter numbers and abundant deer numbers, do we really even need bag limits any more? They cited Virgina and the possibility to take 156 deer in a season there per hunter as an example. On average, Virginia hunters took just 1.6 deer per season, 140 some less than they could have. The article went on to say that often these days seasons and bag limits are set more so for "social reasons," versus management. Another article I found of interest was on the relationship between wolves and coyotes in in country where they coexist. In any case, it mentioned that a "healthy" wolf will kill and eat an average of 15 deer per year. I'd be more worried about the wolves if they were in my area!

That is nuts that they can shoot a deer a day! I wonder how many bucks live to maturity out there with that going on??

[goblueM]

I have been in SW Virginia for 2 deer seasons now. There are a lot of deer, just like in many areas of MN and Wisconsin. Lot less people though. Hard to hunt in many areas here, because its just thousands upon thousands of open hardwoods in the mountains. Lot of places that are very hard to access.

Its pretty tough to shoot more than 5 deer a year, even if you really try. Sure, a few people probably do, but the vast majority shoot 0, 1, or 2 I would wager.

"156 deer per hunter" is just ridiculous. The normal bag limit is 5, you can purchase additional bonus tags. But nobody would want to spend that much money on tags, ammunition, or can possibly shoot that many deer. Using 156 as the max limit is technically correct, but disengenous

Plenty of bucks live to maturity in the national forest here, they probably are never even seen by a hunter. Crappy genetics and body size for the most part, even for mature deer

[BLACKJACK]

Joining this post late but I would say in central MN where I hunt, zone 277, there are a lot of deer, we're presently classified as Lottery but I'd like to see it goto Managed. I can't say I saw deer every time out in the stand but I saw plenty of deer.

I'd hate to be the DNR and have to manage deer, some people want quality, some want quantity, and some want both. Then you have farmer concerns, car and insurance concerns, not fun to manage.

I would hope that they would error on the side of quantity, I'd rather see deer, and they can also rebound faster if there is a bad winter.

[Musky Buck]

I still wish they would've left the farm country as zone 4, our deer numbers may not be as low as they currently are with splitting the hunters and having 7 or 5 less days in the field. It's been nocturnal city the past 5 years for many in my area. It may not help that I'm stationed in the highest muzzy kill total in the state year after year also not that it's a huge # but those mature deer used to be part of next years crop to go after with the bow or rifle. With that said I think I'm likely in the highest pressured zone in the state also hence the extremely nocturnal nature after opening day which if you don't get good deer movement weather they'll know we're out there regardless. But, I view it like a casino, only so many can come out ahead with the deer they hoped for and quite a few aren't going to line up the 7's or deer. It's after the fact enough from the season now, went on a major scouting mission the other day to the best known deer areas in our zone and never saw a deer, kinda scary. They should be jumping off the nocturnal bandwagon pretty soon, then again this winter has been very bizarre. The melted hilltops of March/April will hold the for sure answer to the area herd(s).

[hockeybc69]

I wasnt a big fan of the Zone 4 to Zone 2 change either MB.

It was nice to have the population of hunters split across two weekends for the most part.

Those that wanted to hunt multiple seasons and weapons had the All Season license choice to do that if they so desired.

Now every Tom, Richard and Harry can hunt the 9 consecutive days of firearms season. It definitely has put the deer on high alert in my opinion.

[Musky Buck]

Agree Hockey, maybe it was the timing of the switch, had really high deer numbers and with 5 tags and basically it's unlimited, it took about this long to thin it to where we are and I feel it easier for muzzy hunters having snow to dial in to where the deer are, not that as nocturnal as they are you'll get 1, but just added pressure in the top muzzy permit area being farmland it can maybe change things some. Zone 4 made you think, do I want 1st crack but only 2 days or do I want 4 days or do I want to forgo party hunting and all-season it by spending 3x as much on a license like for me I didn't bow hunt, but wanted the rifle and muzzy on years when I got shut out rifle hunting. The first couple years of high deer numbers all was great, now I'll be watching permit area 240 really closely over the next 5 year stretch to see if things recover in parts of that permit area. I know dozens of guys who hunt all 9 days whether they did well already or not, they're in the tree and will be with a muzzy also, no 1 is ever done in 240. That is the extra thinning of the herd by guys who already thinned.

[LightningBG]

I'm so confused. First I wasn't supposed to shoot small bucks, because then they can turn into big bucks. Now I'm not supposed to shoot does, because we need more fawns. And we should probably leave the big bucks alone so they can pass on the good genetics.

What to do now? Rabbits?

Truthfully though. I hunted strictly WI this year. Where I am, its unlimited bonus (antlerless tags). I buy half a dozen every year (only $2 a pop), have never used more than 2, but I'll buy another half dozen next year all the same. Who knows why.

But, my group certainly thought the numbers were down. Too many tags given out is what they say. Which is funny, because I saw just as many deer as I always do. Oh, but wait, out of the 6 guys, not a single one came back after lunch on opening day, nor did they come back the next day, or the next week. I on the other hand kept going back out by myself and ended up with a nice doe and an 8pt.

But the herd is hurting over there too... according to them.

[Musky Buck]

You're not confused at all, you buying 6 tags is like many in my area buying 5, now in farmland where bedding/cover is somewhat lean in many sections, it didn't take long to really lower the deer numbers and that's where it is. The herd isn't really hurting so to speak it's just a lot lower than it was a few years back and we compare now to then. It's why the farmland zone or open country zone in MN was zone 4.

[BLACKJACK]

I'm so confused. First I wasn't supposed to shoot small bucks, because then they can turn into big bucks. Now I'm not supposed to shoot does, because we need more fawns. And we should probably leave the big bucks alone so they can pass on the good genetics.

Thats just it, one persons poison is another persons pleasure. Twenty years ago you were a good deer hunter if you shot a buck, even a forkhorn, now you're 'depriving' other hunters of the chance to shoot that buck a few years later when its a 'trophy'. If you shoot 5 does legally, and use them up, you'll still have people calling you a game hog - because they can't or won't shoot that many.

You can't please everybody. Thats why I've kind of went full circle, I used to shoot every deer I saw, its brown its down, then I started thinking maybe I should pass on some small buck, and did, but then after a few years with no venison in the freeze, I said screw what other hunters think, I spend enough time in a tree stand with my bow, that spike is a trophy to me and is going to taste real fine, it just paid the 'deer taxes' for the year.

[arrow]

I think we as hunters got spoiled during the years the numbers were so high. I think the herd is probably where it should be at in many areas of the state. I hunted in three different zones this year and saw what I consider to be a fair number of deer. I can't speak for the southwest where I hear the heard is really down but with so little cover I'm not surprised. I have always believed every deer to be a trophy regardless. The idea of putting a measuring tape to them never has appealed to me personally.

[Musky Buck]

No 20 years ago you weren't a "good deer hunter" where I'm from if you shot a spike, both my grandpa's would say why shoot that runt when there's much larger deer running our farms, this was actually 30 years ago now, shoot a doe if you got lucky in the lottery. Why would they think that way because they each had over a hundred head of cattle on their farms and there was never a shortage of meat and 1 of the 2 was way poor having 13 children, he they had 0 money. There ways extended me into fishing, releasing eater walleye or crappie not a problem, they both preached hard you don't have to get get get. If you can afford the internet and it's not a necessity, you don't need to get get get, save the 500 a year on it and go meat shopping. Hunt more for the fun of it, the challenge of it, and enjoy your friends and family while doing it and if you get some meat or fillets, there you go. The thinned herd in my area, the others better hunt more for the fun of it, the challenge of it, and enjoy your friends and family, the meat part is going to be a little thinner than it was a few years back.

[Bear55]

I think we as hunters got spoiled during the years the numbers were so high. I think the herd is probably where it should be at in many areas of the state. I hunted in three different zones this year and saw what I consider to be a fair number of deer. I can't speak for the southwest where I hear the heard is really down but with so little cover I'm not surprised. I have always believed every deer to be a trophy regardless. The idea of putting a measuring tape to them never has appealed to me personally.

I also agree that the overall herd might be ok, the proplem I see is some very large areas hold very few deer while other large areas have plenty of deer. I feel some areas could sustain a big harvest/harsh winters while others just could not. Im my area we just shot too many does over a 3-4 year period then got hit with a very untimely bad winter or two that put a hurt on the herd. I'm talking close to 97-98 like deer numbers here, not as bad but close.

[Musky Buck]

It must be down quite a bit unless they can fly, the most deer I'm seeing currently are within the city limits of quite a few towns, not that I'm seeing quite a few deer. Fresh snow last night, drove around some of the sections in the area where they always cross the gravels, this morning, never saw a track, but it doesn't mean they needed to cross, but I need to keep scouting around. I'd like to see or find some in the area or what is the conclusion ?

[Musky Buck]

Still trying to find the deer, the deal is they are the mature deer to hunt next fall at least some of them, is the weather/winter why they aren't where they've always been this time of year ? Farming practices ? I know they're good at hiding after Nov. 5th, but now it's Jan. 23rd, I sure hope there just being nocturnal as ever, time to put on a few more miles this wkd and with fresh snow again maybe locate them somewhere in the area. At first glance I'd say #'s are way down, but things aren't always what they appear, it's also prep time for next rifle season, thinned or not now is a good time to check your area and prepare for next year.

[hockeybc69]

I dont think you can simply evaluate the herd by driving around...

I understand that maybe there are areas that in the past would have deer visible from roads and maybe you are not seeing them this year. But this year is a very different winter.

With the little snow we got I would find it hard to believe its going to push deer to move around a lot more than they have been.

But simply driving around? Man, in our area, with the hills you cant see most of the areas from the roads that are hidden by woods and hills.....