deer density

[lichen fox]

Yes, the farmers have plenty of food for the deer in thier fields...but right now in our area, there is 2 feet of snow over the chisleplowed soybean fields...it's been that way pretty much for the last month and we have 3 more month's of winter to go...so most, if not all, the deer are relying on woody brouse for their main diet...some of the fields, in more protected area's, where the snow is not crusted hard deer are able to dig through to whatever crop residue is left...but in doing so they are often expending more energy than the morsels they find give them in return...There is no standing corn within 20 miles of my hunting area this year and the deer are now pretty much just brousing in the woods and willows....

And as for "based on social goals"....I would not disagree...I'm not talking about what the DNR does....I speaking of what each one of us should take into consideration about the area's we hunt...sure it would be nice to see 40 deer every day on that 160 acres, and sure there would be plenty of agricultural and natural foods for 8 month's out of the year, but you have to consider the other 4 month's. Does your area have enough natural food and cover if all the agricultural food is depleted or unaccessable because of snow cover...if not, breeding bucks, run down after the rut may not be able to sustain themsevles and die...does will absorb fawns if they are starving themselves...and prior year fawns will have less of a chance of making it to spring...even if the DNR doesn't consider all these factors, sportsman "should"....

[smsmith]

Yes, the farmers have plenty of food for the deer in thier fields...but right now in our area, there is 2 feet of snow over the chisleplowed soybean fields...it's been that way pretty much for the last month and we have 3 more month's of winter to go...so most, if not all, the deer are relying on woody brouse for their main diet...some of the fields, in more protected area's, where the snow is not crusted hard deer are able to dig through to whatever crop residue is left...but in doing so they are often expending more energy than the morsels they find give them in return...There is no standing corn within 20 miles of my hunting area this year and the deer are now pretty much just brousing in the woods and willows....

And as for "based on social goals"....I would not disagree...I'm not talking about what the DNR does....I speaking of what each one of us should take into consideration about the area's we hunt...sure it would be nice to see 40 deer every day on that 160 acres, and sure there would be plenty of agricultural and natural foods for 8 month's out of the year, but you have to consider the other 4 month's. Does your area have enough natural food and cover if all the agricultural food is depleted or unaccessable because of snow cover...if not, breeding bucks, run down after the rut may not be able to sustain themsevles and die...does will absorb fawns if they are starving themselves...and prior year fawns will have less of a chance of making it to spring...even if the DNR doesn't consider all these factors, sportsman "should"....

Absolutely valid points. From your description of the area, I'm assuming you are pretty far south in the state?

Way off base ^^^ Red River Valley?

[Getanet]

I'm to the point that I barely want to read, or debate about, wildlife issues anymore. In the past two weeks in either the Star Trib or Pioneer Press it's been written that the deer numbers are way down, we're facing a statewide epidemic with small pike overtaking our lakes, Mille Lacs has imploded....

I have a theory, and it's just a theory because I have no numbers to back them up, but perhaps we're just putting too much pressure on our natural resources. If a guy wanted to, and many do, you can deer hunt for 4 full months out of the year. Advances in ice fishing equipment means a guy can be comfortable sitting on the ice when temperatures reach a point that no human has any business being outside. All while Flashers, GPS, Lakemaster chips, and game cameras are making us more knowledgeable about our prey and efficient at killing/catching them.

While outdoor pursuits are awesome and healthy, it's hard for Mother Nature to keep up. The DNR is caught in the middle of trying to maintain stable populations to keep everyone happy, maintain enough trophy opportunities to keep others happy.etc etc.

If there's one constant that I can find, it's that any change that is meant to have a positive outcome typically results in an equally negative outcome somewhere else. I know the law of unintended consequences isn't a new breakthrough, but holy cow do we seem to have an amazingly ability to help screw things up.

[lichen fox]

40 miles from the ND border.....60 miles from the Canadian border!

I'm just saying be realistic about deer densities for a given area.

I've lived in and hunted this area my entire life...in the first 28 years of deer hunting I was allowed One deer per season period, about half of that time it was bucks only or doe permits...then for the next 14 years, it was sometimes one archery and one firearms, sometimes two total by any means, sometimes 5 total by any means, and then for the past 3 years it has been one deer per season period...I've always seen plenty of deer nearly every year in 45 seasons of hunting...I can count on one hand the numbers of years I did not....I really think the bulk of today's hunters are expecting a little too much when it comes to basing thier experience on "how many" deer they see or have opportunitys to harvest...but that again is "area specific"....

[B. Amish]

i'll say something else about densities. i think my zone is around the 20 per square mile range. i know for a fact that the square mile that surrounds our land holds way more than 20 deer. but 4 miles north, there's about 4 square miles that might hold 5 deer total.

these deer densities are an average figure over hundreds of square miles. some people seem to immediatley want to break it down to the 40 or 80 that they hunt. i've seen several times how folks think that a zone managed for 15 means 1 deer for every 40 acres.

[LandDr]

"While outdoor pursuits are awesome and healthy, it's hard for Mother Nature to keep up. The DNR is caught in the middle of trying to maintain stable populations to keep everyone happy, maintain enough trophy opportunities to keep others happy.etc etc."

I don't believe the DNR is managing State land for maximum carrying capacities of hunter specific wildlife...deer, pheasant, waterfowl, etc. How many WMA or State lands have shrub\conifer units through out the property associated with excellent food sources? Not many. Most WMA and State lands are being managed to "preserve" "native" ecosystems...prairies, forests, etc. Whitetail deer and pheasants are not prairie species for the most part and only exist at carrying capacities of forests. I would never go up north and sit in a woods for two weeks to see 5 deer per day or 5 deer the entire two weeks...or anywhere else in the state for that matter. The reality is that the State is not going to "manage" for increasing deer or pheasant numbers...it will be dictated by Mother Nature.

I went to a training class a few years ago where a DNR forester was teaching the class. He asked the question, "Do deer NEED food plots?" He said NO and that deer will "survive under natural environments".

"Survive"? Yes, they will survive...and you will see a few deer...if that is all that you want is to see a FEW deer.

I was really taken back by this guys position. I don't want deer to just survive, I want them to flourish and have the properties managed at higher carrying capacities so there can be more deer and other wildlife. Yes, food plots are not REQUIRED to have deer, but they sure the heck help have healthier deer and more deer.

I have pretty much thrown in the towel for public land...there are just too many preservationists in charge these days that want to see "what it used to look like" with prairie chickens, butterflies and bob-o-links.

I have said this before, when I sit in my deer stand I see 15 to 30 deer each time I am out. I have pheasants flying all over. Ducks are cruising in and out of my ponds. Why? Because I have designed and implemented components to maximize the carrying capacity of the property and I love it! I even have some butterflies and bob-o-links!

I would agree that densities of all wildlife are way down...but much of them are actually where DNR wants to see them. I feel horrible for the people that sit in a deer stand for two weeks and see 5 deer or even no deer. It doesn't have to be that way. But as I have said before, instead of expecting the DNR to change or for the DNR to do the projects, you need to get out and do them yourselves. That has challenges as well but I think it would get results faster.

That's just my $1.50 on it all.

[smsmith]

i'll say something else about densities. i think my zone is around the 20 per square mile range. i know for a fact that the square mile that surrounds our land holds way more than 20 deer. but 4 miles north, there's about 4 square miles that might hold 5 deer total.

these deer densities are an average figure over hundreds of square miles. some people seem to immediatley want to break it down to the 40 or 80 that they hunt. i've seen several times how folks think that a zone managed for 15 means 1 deer for every 40 acres.

Another valid point. All I'll say is that if my area was managed for 20 dpsm....I'd have never opened my mouth and gotten involved in the MDDI. 20 dpsm pre-fawn likely leads to a herd around 30+ psm come hunting opener.

You are of course correct in stating that deer aren't evenly distributed throughout the landscape. I've got some of the best "landscape" for a couple square miles....so I'd likely have pretty fantastic hunting with an average of 20 dpsm. My hunting with half that (just under half actually) is still better than what most guys are experiencing with these densities. I feel for those guys who are only able to hunt public ground. I feel for those guys who don't have the time, ability, financial resources, or know how to do habitat projects.

I certainly don't want a deer behind every tree, but I do believe that in at least some units in central and eastcentral MN the herd has been reduced to less than half of what it was in 2003. In the coming weeks...I think that statement will be born out with some factual numbers.

[Musky Buck]

Have been pretty tough on you lately Amish but I concur with you more times than not and I agree about what you just posted big time. This season 1st 2 days I saw 12 bucks, 7 does and a fawn, 9 bucks were different characters and the does idk some were different sizes anyway. I was on 70 acres of land with not much for cover around it for anyone else to hunt, just the south line. The boys north of the gravel drove it out, skinny 120 acres with ample guys and kicked up a doe and 2 fawns. So I had maybe 20-30 deer in my chunk and the boys north had 3, or a few they missed in the drive, or they lied, same style of land corn was surrounding all of us and the year before it was opposite, they had 20-30 in there and I had 3 you get the drift. Don't quite get it but that's the way the last 2 years have been. Where are they on opening morning means a lot in a way. The boys to the north were fed up DNR this and that they screwed the area there's no deer anymore and I did not add what I saw because then the box stand goes up by the road so they can fire down my wooded edge so thankfully the deer are so nocturnal these guys hunting a 1/4 mile away or less thanks to the dirt road said nothing was around lol, no snow no current proof. Like Amish said one section can or is holding a bunch and another even across the road may only have nighttime visitors or few if any at all. The boys said since we saw nothing opening day we figured do to the wind they were holding tight so we drove it. They were needling me about driving the 70 but I had to decline to help repopulate the area for the next season hopefully. That would've been one crazy drive this year. That is kinda the way it has been for a few years now, good numbers in places, hunters outnumber the deer in other sections. Winter,wolves,coyotes,bears etc not that they haven't always been around just with low numbers and lengthy hunting seasons it'll be a challenge to get the numbers back up unless they go to bucks only for awhile. Even hunters choice is kinda shaky in a way in providing enough breedable does to get through the season and by season I mean it's wolf season year round, coyotes and bears in the spring, us in the fall and anyone take a shot at next winters weather ? Could be way worse then this one add about 3 more feet of snow through the farmland and everything plowed black kinda fall and ? Oh well, I should have at least 1 good buck to hunt next fall I hope

[lichen fox]

You know, most of you guys are pretty secretive about exactly where you hunt or live in the state....think about it...if the snow is 3 feet deep, and farmers crops are not an option for food, realistically, how many deer could survive on your hunting property and adjacent areas?

[smsmith]

You know, most of you guys are pretty secretive about exactly where you hunt or live in the state....think about it...if the snow is 3 feet deep, and farmers crops are not an option for food, realistically, how many deer could survive on your hunting property and adjacent areas?

I'll fess up

I live and hunt in the same place, unit 215. East of Long Praire, west of Little Falls. We've got about a 2.5' snow pack right now. I do have food available for the few deer that are around in the way of food plots as well as hinge cuts (bring browse to their level). There is also quite a bit of standing corn around the immediate area. I've got neighboring landowners who also leave some crops standing each year just for the deer.

This area could easily support a deer herd at least twice what we currently have. Loads of cattail/tag alder/tamarack swamps in the area. Plenty of ridges and valleys for some thermal protection and for areas with less snow (and more obviously). Every spring the hillsides are covered with trilliums. For anybody who knows...trilliums are an indicator species. If you have too many deer, you don't have trilliums. If you have lots of trilliums...you don't have many deer. I have fantastic oak regeneration on my place, as well as wild apples that are unprotected and unbrowsed. Basswoods that are hinged do get browsed, but there is good basswood regen as well.

[PurpleFloyd]

I'm to the point that I barely want to read, or debate about, wildlife issues anymore. In the past two weeks in either the Star Trib or Pioneer Press it's been written that the deer numbers are way down, we're facing a statewide epidemic with small pike overtaking our lakes, Mille Lacs has imploded....

I have a theory, and it's just a theory because I have no numbers to back them up, but perhaps we're just putting too much pressure on our natural resources. If a guy wanted to, and many do, you can deer hunt for 4 full months out of the year. Advances in ice fishing equipment means a guy can be comfortable sitting on the ice when temperatures reach a point that no human has any business being outside. All while Flashers, GPS, Lakemaster chips, and game cameras are making us more knowledgeable about our prey and efficient at killing/catching them.

While outdoor pursuits are awesome and healthy, it's hard for Mother Nature to keep up. The DNR is caught in the middle of trying to maintain stable populations to keep everyone happy, maintain enough trophy opportunities to keep others happy.etc etc.

If there's one constant that I can find, it's that any change that is meant to have a positive outcome typically results in an equally negative outcome somewhere else. I know the law of unintended consequences isn't a new breakthrough, but holy cow do we seem to have an amazingly ability to help screw things up.

Someone gets it. +1

[laker1]

What amazes me living in north central Minnesota how just about every piece of land is getting sub divided for family members new houses for the kids to people moving out in the country. Deer habitat is shrinking,especially winter habitat.

I believe we got to be more conservative and build are deer herds higher,I am amazed in the paper or by most hunters you often hear little talk about the big word HABITAT.

It is usually wolves or the DNR should do this or that.

[smsmith]

If you have a facebook page, checking this out may be enlightening

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Northwoods-Mapping/271038809668330

[mntatonka]

If you have a facebook page, checking this out may be enlightening

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Northwoods-Mapping/271038809668330

Get one that shows deer density per square mile of habitat. Then you'll have something worth showing. There's no comparing deer densities between areas unless it's strictly habitat. It's entirely possible one area could be 25% habitat, and the neighboring area could only be 5% habitat.

Granted, the deer per hunter numbers remain the same, but considering it's an average of 1:1 across most of the state, even in places where there's a LOT of deer, I'd say the goals are about right. Hunters have gotten so used to seeing a lot of deer over the last decade, and now that the population has taken a natural swing back down they're all ticked because it's not so easy to shoot a deer.

But what the heck, I'm all for kicking the farmers off the public stakeholder group, all they do is pay to feed the deer we're trying to kill.

[smsmith]

But what the heck, I'm all for kicking the farmers off the public stakeholder group, all they do is pay to feed the deer we're trying to kill.

I certainly am not all for that. In fact, I'm for having local farmers on those teams. What I'm not for is having skewed percentages of insurance representatives, Nature Conservancy types, and big ag representatives on those groups.

[T_arola]

I agree - that you have to look at carrying capacity and deer density per zone. But when you look at the map of adult deer/hunter - (numbers do not include the additional archery and muzzle loader pressure - Firearms season only) it makes you wonder.

For instance - the map of the deer density goals - that is a goal. I would guess that in 2013 and in 2014 the deer density is going to below than the DNR goal in Northern and East Central MN.

So take deer density goals (the actual deer density might lower than the goal) and firearms pressure (not including archery/muzzy hunting) and you have unbalanced system. I think the red in the adult deer/hunter map shows this.

I think if the DNR sells 500,000 deer license @ $30. I don't think we are getting $15 million worth in deer management.

[sticknstring]

Hunters have gotten so used to seeing a lot of deer over the last decade, and now that the population has taken a natural swing back down they're all ticked because it's not so easy to shoot a deer.

And by "natural", you mean the 25% population reduction plan set by stakeholders in '05? That reduction was complete by 2010, and yet here we are with three more years of decline and bonus tags being offered hand over fist. I don't see anything natural about it.

[UNDBowhunter]

Here are the maps

[smsmith]

And by "natural", you mean the 25% population reduction plan set by stakeholders in '05? That reduction was complete by 2010, and yet here we are with three more years of decline and bonus tags being offered hand over fist. I don't see anything natural about it.

I'm hoping that in a week or so we're gonna have some data showing the herd has been reduced by 50-70% in at least some units of central and eastcentral MN.

[smsmith]

Here are the maps

Thanks, I didn't know how to do that

[UNDBowhunter]

I agree - that you have to look at carrying capacity and deer density per zone. But when you look at the map of adult deer/hunter - (numbers do not include the additional archery and muzzle loader pressure - Firearms season only) it makes you wonder.

For instance the map of the deer density goals - that is a goal. I would guess that 2013 and in 2014 the deer density is going to be below than the DNR goal in Northern and East Central MN.

So take deer density goals (the actual deer density might be lower than the goal) and firearms pressure (not including archery/muzzy hunting) and you have unbalanced system. I think the red in the adult deer/hunter map shows this.

I think if the DNR sells 500,000 deer license @ $30. I don't think we are getting $15 million worth in deer management.

I think this reflects the maps.

[bowhunternw]

Thanks for posting those maps,good info there.

[LandDr]

Nice maps...easy to read...but not sure I understand the goal.

In summary, this is what the maps show for the area I hunt in (central MN)...

6-9 hunters

4-8 deer

0-1 adult deer

So...if I am ready that correctly...there are 6-9 hunters chasing 4-8 deer of which 0-1 are adults.

Wow...what kind of goal is that?

A goal that most likely half the hunters will not get a deer?

A goal that most likely there will not be even 1 adult deer?

Maybe I am reading it wrong, but this is ridiculous to me. My kids would fall asleep in the stand cuz they would never even see a deer. They would lose interest and stop hunting. Better see more deer or hunter recruitment goes out the door.

Luckily I don't buy into that and I have a lot of deer on my property due to the habitat and food development.

[smsmith]

A goal that most likely half the hunters will not get a deer?

Hunter success rates are below 40% in MN and have been for a good number of years.

I hear what you're saying about habitat development on your own chunk of heaven. However, if we want our hunting traditions to continue, we have to make sure those folks who don't own land (i.e. the majority of hunters) continue to remain in the sport. Pretty tough to keep a kid or new hunter interested when they experience the kind of hunting many areas of MN has right now.

[lichen fox]

In our area, the goal is 0 - 4 deer per square mile and the "deer per hunter" goal is 1 adult deer per hunter...

[T_arola]

This does not reflect archery and muzzleloader hunters also. Pretty interesting to see goals vs firearm hunter density = deer goals sq mi/hunter sq mi. "May the odds be in your favor" - not for the MN Deer!!!

Here are the maps

[mntatonka]

In our area, the goal is 0 - 4 deer per square mile and the "deer per hunter" goal is 1 adult deer per hunter...

sounds like a good goal, assuming that's what the habitat can sustain. If you look at most of Zone 3, it's also 1 deer per hunter, but that's at 15-20 deer per square mile, which is about what the habitat can sustain on average.

[T_arola]

I will say this again -

I agree - that you have to look at carrying capacity and deer density per zone. But when you look at the map of adult deer/hunter - (numbers do not include the additional archery and muzzle loader pressure - Firearms season only) it makes you wonder.

For instance the map of the deer density goals - that is a goal. I would guess that 2013 and in 2014 the deer density is going to be below than the DNR goal in Northern and East Central MN.

So take deer density goals (the actual deer density might be lower than the goal) and firearms pressure (not including archery/muzzy hunting) and you have unbalanced system. I think the red in the adult deer/hunter map shows this.

I think if the DNR sells 500,000 deer license @ $30. I don't think we are getting $15 million worth in deer management.

[smsmith]

Total deer license/tag revenue in 2012 was over $18 million

[mntatonka]

I will say this again -

I agree - that you have to look at carrying capacity and deer density per zone. But when you look at the map of adult deer/hunter - (numbers do not include the additional archery and muzzle loader pressure - Firearms season only) it makes you wonder.

For instance the map of the deer density goals - that is a goal. I would guess that 2013 and in 2014 the deer density is going to be below than the DNR goal in Northern and East Central MN.

So take deer density goals (the actual deer density might be lower than the goal) and firearms pressure (not including archery/muzzy hunting) and you have unbalanced system. I think the red in the adult deer/hunter map shows this.

I think if the DNR sells 500,000 deer license @ $30. I don't think we are getting $15 million worth in deer management.

6.5%. That's the number of hunters that only hunt archery. 1.35% is the number that only bought Muzzleloader licenses. That means that 92% of hunters are firearms hunters, so statistically they're all that matters. Adding them to the map wouldn't change the numbers

I agree that you're not getting 15mil in deer management. Of course, not all of that $30 goes to actual management. I'm guessing there's a considerable percentage that goes to enforcement, another percentage that goes into the general fund, a large percentage that goes towards upkeep on public/state lands, and on and on.