deer density

[smsmith]

Total deer kill 2003 - 290,525

2004 - 260,604

2005 - 255,736

2006 - 270,778

2007 - 260,434

2008 - 221,837

2009 - 194,186

2010 - 207,313

2011 - 192,331

2012 - 186,634

2013 - 164,550

[Getanet]

What happens when a lot of very good hunters aren't getting deer anymore?

Blame party hunting, hunting during the rut, or people shooting a 6 pointer before they could shoot it as an 8 pointer?

On a serious note, the people who complain about MN being one of the worst states in the nation for hunting typically cite Iowa, WI, or Missouri as meccas for deer hunting and the blue print for how a herd should be managed. But I've pasted some links to news articles from this year, and it seems hunters in those states don't like their hunting either. Perhaps we're just at the bottom of a natural cycle? Or perhaps hunters like to complain more than old women?

Missouri:

http://www.kansascity.com/2014/01/04/4729843/missouri-deer-hunting-reaches.html#storylink=cpy

Is there trouble in paradise? Missouri deer hunters certainly think so. They remember days when they could pick and choose the deer they wanted to shoot. Now, they’re lucky just to see deer. Any deer, let alone a big buck

Iowa:

http://amestrib.com/sports/outdoors/60-y...h.ZaQNZbFk.dpuf

It’s true: the state’s population appears to be shrinking, as evidenced by seven consecutive years of smaller harvests

Wisconsin

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/local/de...1a4bcf887a.html

Deer harvest down 7 percent in Wisconsin

[mntatonka]

Getanet has a point, and a good one if you think about it.

In the 70's there weren't many deer.

In the 80's there were lots of deer (relatively speaking).

In the 90's there weren't many deer.

In the 2000's there were lots of deer.

Now were in the 2010's, and what do you know, there's not many deer.

Given that much of deer biology (rut cycle especially) is driven by the sun and the moon, it's entirely possible that deer population swings follow the sun's own 11-year cycle. I'd be curious to see if there's any correlation between the two.

[smsmith]

[ Perhaps we're just at the bottom of a natural cycle? Or perhaps hunters like to complain more than old women?

Or...perhaps there is a disturbing trend going on with deer management?

[laker1]

There is some point with land constantly being sub divided,hunter numbers increasing even tho slowly. There will be diminishing returns. The average hunter is not going to get a deer every year. Even including some people shooting more than 1 deer,40% kill is good. We can and should increase the number of deer per square mile,but I see from some messages here and experience,some expect to see a deer the first 10 minutes and be done hunting.

Also ask the people how many deer or bucks they see on their game cam at night. Quite a few. But nothing in the day time.

[smsmith]

According to the MN DNR...31% of firearm hunters were "successful" in 2012. 52% of the deer killed were antlered bucks.

[Jameson]

...Not everyone thinks the hunting is bad now.If anything we are seeing the best hunting we have ever had in my 30 plus years of hunting. Next year should be better than this year. We "sacrificed" for decades by mandates that required us to use a shotgun and only have 2 days to fill a tag. How do you suppose the success rate of a bow hunter would look if they had to fill their tag in 2 days? At least it is 9 days now and that does give us a reason to be more selective which is good, but if Bow hunters had the same 9 day season my guess is they might hunt differently or not be quite as selective either. The same can be said for buying multiple licenses. If you were limited to hunting only one season then I would guess fewer guys would let deer pass. Not all, but some....

Answer my question first. Is it me that you were talking about in your other post?

[Getanet]

52% of the deer killed were antlered bucks.

Amazingly, 37% of those were shot by Little Johnny from Nonteepicals little story earlier.

But seriously, what percentage of the total harvest should be made up of antlered bucks according to the experts? Approximately 50% seems about what I would expect considering certain areas restrict doe tags.

[hockeybc69]

Why does this keep getting twisted to big bucks??

This is about population of deer. Nothing more.

[smsmith]

Amazingly, 37% of those were shot by Little Johnny from Nonteepicals little story earlier.

But seriously, what percentage of the total harvest should be made up of antlered bucks according to the experts? Approximately 50% seems about what I would expect considering certain areas restrict doe tags.

In a state with a well managed deer herd, most deer harvested annually are adult does with adult bucks being second in total percentage.

[PurpleFloyd]

Quote:

If anything we are seeing the best hunting we have ever had in my 30 plus years of hunting. Next year should be better than this year.

There is the narrow sighted part I have read a few times...

How hard is it to understand that you might be experienceing everything of your dreams, but there is a very large population of people saying something is really a mess?

Good for you. You are one of the lucky ones in this day and age. Dont forget there are a lot of people that are not and have not experienced that for a while now.

So what you are saying is if you don't think the hunting experience in this state sucks you cannot post? Seriously- It is a diverse state. I have maintained that from day one. Some guys have not seen a lot of deer and they post it. To you that is fine and you support them stating it. Yet, another person says they are having great success and you try to label them as narrow sighted.

That says alot about you right there.

[PurpleFloyd]

Answer my question first. Is it me that you were talking about in your other post?

That was very mature of you to change my name in your post. Grow up a little and when you are old enough I will be happy to discuss it with you.

[PurpleFloyd]

Better hunters will find deer,They spend some time looking.They dont leave home 2 weekends a year and expect to fill tags.

[smsmith]

I am not sure what you mean by that. Would you be able to expand on it a bit? The reason I ask is our party (Yeah,party) has brought in 6 of our children to the group over the past 3-4 years including my son and daughter. We have been teaching them that they will have good years and bad years, that they are guaranteed nothing, but to enjoy any deer they are given a chance to harvest because some of the best memories come from the ones you see and don't get, but that you learned something from. The kids have grown to look forward to each season and not because they feel they need to see a certain percentage of deer or even a deer at all, but that they get out with family and spend time together. They get to decide what they feel is a trophy and we fight hard to ensure that nobody else dictates to then what is acceptable to harvest.

It took me a day or so...but I'm pretty sure it doesn't matter what I post for clarification. You have no desire for clarification....best of luck to you in the coming deer seasons.

[nonteepical]

On a serious note, the people who complain about MN being one of the worst states in the nation for hunting typically cite Iowa, WI, or Missouri as meccas for deer hunting and the blue print for how a herd should be managed. But I've pasted some links to news articles from this year, and it seems hunters in those states don't like their hunting either. Perhaps we're just at the bottom of a natural cycle? Or perhaps hunters like to complain more than old women?

Missouri:

http://www.kansascity.com/2014/01/04/4729843/missouri-deer-hunting-reaches.html#storylink=cpy

Is there trouble in paradise? Missouri deer hunters certainly think so. They remember days when they could pick and choose the deer they wanted to shoot. Now, they’re lucky just to see deer. Any deer, let alone a big buck

Iowa:

http://amestrib.com/sports/outdoors/60-y...h.ZaQNZbFk.dpuf

It’s true: the state’s population appears to be shrinking, as evidenced by seven consecutive years of smaller harvests

Wisconsin

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/local/de...1a4bcf887a.html

Deer harvest down 7 percent in Wisconsin

[smsmith]

My personal opinion is it's a disturbing trend for deer hunters accross the country. The conspiracy is to lower deer populations accross the board everywhere. I think big Ag, auto insurance and others are on a mission to lower numbers in every state not just minnesota and hunters all over the country are seeing (or not seeing) it. This is why the petition is important a bigger voice for the deer hunter who foots the bill for the DNR.

Here, here...well stated sir

[jentz]

No clarification??We should all think like you and follow orders? Or we're wrong.

[smsmith]

No clarification??We should all think like you and follow orders? Or we're wrong.

talking to me or nonteepical?

[smsmith]

oops

[Jameson]

...That was very mature of you to change my name in your post. Grow up a little and when you are old enough I will be happy to discuss it with you.

Dear PurpleTroll, You are the one that is not willing to have a conversation without telling half-lies.

Sincerely,

Honest Jameson

[tfran123]

Jameson - you should know by now that PurpleFloyd takes the "other" position just to be that guy, I've seen it 100's of times, this thread is no different. It's pretty simple deer numbers are down, can /should we bring them up - the big insurance companies would like to maximize harvest (deer hits are expensive!). It's not about bucks either but Purple Floyd can't/won't recognize that many of these organizations are trying to make our hunting better, sure some of them want better bucks and that my friend is what gets him all stirred up. Way too many permit areas in the mid-2000's allowing a 5 deer harvest, if you want to stack up does then guess what the population suffers, less does and future bucks. It's not hard to figure out, but for him it's a real challenge.

[tfran123]

my main concern with all this is the groups that are pushing this realize that more deer is a pre-requisite to their ultimate goal of apr's.

yep, i said it.

Classic post, can you look at anything objectively? Appears not, focus on big ag and big insurance companies first and then do a little research. Contrary to your very narrow view, the APR guys are actually fighting for some of the things you would appreciate. Hard to comprehend, yep, I know but it's true. Just wow . . .

[Jameson]

Jameson - you should know by now that PurpleFloyd takes the "other" position just to be that guy, I've seen it 100's of times, this thread is no different. ...

You know what, I can truly appreciate that aspect. It makes conversation. But just use facts, and not lies. It the half-truths, where he starts out saying something very true (ie..."There is one person on this site that is honest about wanting a buck lottery..") followed by a complete lie ("...so that he can have trophy hunting.")

He is just being a troll.

signed,

Honest Jameson

[Getanet]

Oh brother. Now the guys pushing APR, the most divisive hunting issue I've seen in my lifetime, are going to lecture everyone about the need for hunter unity.

[B. Amish]

Classic post, can you look at anything objectively? Appears not, focus on big ag and big insurance companies first and then do a little research. Contrary to your very narrow view, the APR guys are actually fighting for some of the things you would appreciate. Hard to comprehend, yep, I know but it's true. Just wow . . .

Sure, objectively, I look at apr's as having more negatives than positives.

[tfran123]

Start at the beginning and report back, this IS about deer densities. Make it as difficult as you'd like, apparently it's hard for you.

[rockman]

Yep, nothing like another thread by the entitlement minded, socialistic APR/QDMA crowd, to get folks worked up. Same song, same 10,000th kool aid laden verse.

[B. Amish]

Start at the beginning and report back, this IS about deer densities. Make it as difficult as you'd like, apparently it's hard for you.

A narrow view would believe that this is only about deer density.

[tfran123]

Again, tough for you. Sorry.

[smsmith]

Man, and I thought I was paranoid. Some of the folks on this site are wayyyy out there.

The MDDI has no ulterior motives. It has a narrow focus...improve pre-fawn densities where needed, improve the public stakeholder process so hunters have a stronger voice. That's it.

No grassy knoll here fellas............