deer density

[hockeybc69]

Here are the revenues from Deer Hunting license sales.

Dont think for a second that all this money goes into Deer management...

“If we can manage more for the middle of that swing, we’re going to find hunters are happier overall and license sales are higher overall,” Johnson said. “I hate to point out that it’s a numbers game. Deer licenses are the primary revenue generator for the DNR. Keeping on top of management and keeping hunters happy is paramount to the DNR having a good cash flow.”

[smsmith]

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

108,000+ archery hunters and 58,000+ muzzleloaders isn't statistically insignificant when considering their impact on the deer herd.

[T_arola]

If I do my math correctly (looking just at the State of MN)

79,626.74 sq mi is State of MN - US CENSUS http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/27000.html

166,000 bow and muzzy hunters/79,626.74 = 2.08 bow and muzzy hunters/sq mi

[mntatonka]

If I do my math correctly (looking just at the State of MN)

79,626.74 sq mi is State of MN - US CENSUS http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/27000.html

166,000 bow and muzzy hunters/79,626.74 = 2.08 bow and muzzy hunters/sq mi

And 92% of those are also firearms hunters, which are included in these maps. So it's actually only .5 bow/muzzy hunters per square mile.

[smsmith]

79,626.74 sq mi is State of MN - US CENSUS http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/27000.html

I assume this figure is land area - lakes and rivers. There'd be a fair number of acres that are roads, cities, etc. that would still have to be subtracted to get down to acres of land that could hold a deer.

[smsmith]

And 92% of those are also firearms hunters,

Not questioning you, but could you point to where you found that statistic?

[PurpleFloyd]

So maybe the DNR needs to start a stocking program like they do with Walleyes where they raise them in a pen and release them so we can harvest more than the land can hold and sustain on it's own. They can take deer with the best genetics and use them as breeding stock.

[smsmith]

So maybe the DNR needs to start a stocking program like they do with Walleyes where they raise them in a pen and release them so we can harvest more than the land can hold and sustain on it's own. They can take deer with the best genetics and use them as breeding stock.

I'd prefer a drastic reduction in antlerless tag allocation for a few years, but hey....to each their own

[LandDr]

If reducing the anterless tags results in more deer, but the land has a low carrying capacity...then the deer are stressed even though there are more deer.

Releasing deer into low carrying capacity land leads to the same...not going to happen but just for discussion since it was brought up.

Or...increase the carrying capacity of the land to allow "natural" increases in the deer population?

My observation again is that almost all State and Federal land has a VERY LOW carrying capacity for resident wildlife such as deer and pheasants. If you want to see more deer and pheasants and healthier populations, the design philosophies have to change. I don't see that changing without A LOT of pressure.

For example...a certain group bought some land and is donating it to the DNR. 100% of it is being planted to native prairie. No winter cover planned in and no food planned in. What do you think the carrying capacity of that property is for deer and pheasants?

Take that same property and build in two or three shrub\conifer plantings protecting two or three food plots and the rest in native prairie. Now what do you think the carrying capacity is?

If you want 4-8 deer and 5-10 pheasants...go with example one. If you want 10-20 deer and 50-75 pheasants...go with example two. This isn't rocket science...but example two is not what is happening. Whether you look at management in ag country of management in our forests, increasing carrying capacities for "game species" is not happening.

[mntatonka]

Not questioning you, but could you point to where you found that statistic?

right in the harvest report

[smsmith]

Whether you look at management in ag country of management in our forests, increasing carrying capacities for "game species" is not happening.

Agree 100% with that...yet 62% of the $31 million dollars in the MN DNR's Wildlife Expenditure's budget goes to habitat management. That's a lot of money. Too bad the DNR has decided to spend most of it on things that don't benefit the major source of that income....DEER HUNTERS

[LandDr]

They are doing habitat management...but they are doing habitat management for non-game species. There is a huge push for "restoring"...restoring the prairie landscapes to how they once were and restoring the forests to how they once were. This doesn't do much for pheasants and deer.

I am not sure how much if any of that $13 million you mentioned might have gone into all of the grazing of WMAs...but how much cover is out there this winter for pheasants and deer? Try surviving a winter on that! But the drum is beating loudly for high diversity prairies and the management for these...this plan does not include woody cover and food plots. If this type of management continues, MN pheasant and deer populations will always be marginal on public land...it will be the few private landowners that maximize their carrying capacities for deer and pheasants that will have the game.

If you want the management philosophies on public land to change, then you need to let them know loudly and call them on what they are currently doing...ask the tough questions and make the tough statements.

[smsmith]

...ask the tough questions and make the tough statements.

Exactly the process that has begun.

[hockeybc69]

Can anyone find any information on habitat loss or destruction due to too many deer in the past at any point in the last several years?

I have googled and cannot find anything, even back in the 2003 era when harvests were at record levels and population estimates were high.

I don't disagree that habitat improvement is a great idea. But why is habitat improvement over what we have today required to bump up populations in areas that are being managed so low now?

[LandDr]

Calling the DNR or groups and asking the tough questions usually ends up in political statements and lip service. Get the media involved...Dennis Anderson, Outdoor News, Outdoors Weekly, etc. Email and media to the legislators also. It's A LOT of work...but that is about the only way change will happen. Otherwise they will just keep doing what they are doing.

I know this is a deer forum, but why is a pheasant group buying land just to put into prairie where all of the hens die through the winter? "Dead hens don't lay eggs"...all that prairie nesting cover is for nothing when you can't even get the dang hen through the winter! I would recommend everyone to take a close look at who you are supporting with your donations. That will put some pressure on them as well.

[LandDr]

Hockey...there are a lot of things that have changed over the years with regards to landuse. In the past there were a lot more small farmers who farmed small fields throughout the ag land and forests. Most of those small farmers are gone and along with crop prices have resulted in a lot more hay fields, meadows, etc. Mass enrollment of conservation programs have also isolated a lot of excellent cover from food sources. There once was a lot more cover associated with food, and those higher carrying capacities supported other lower lands due to population spill-overs.

When you look at the land you hunt on, think about where the closest food source is...and I mean adequate food source, not just a little 1 or 2 acre food plot within 160 acres.

In my philosophies, if you want to have a descent deer or pheasant population, you should have 10% food for every 40 acres. If you want to have even maximum carrying capacities, you should have around 20-25% or even up to 30% food, along with 1\3 thermal cover and 1\3 prairie or grass land...this is my "Management by Thirds" concept. Within this landuse design, you will have maximum carrying capacities for deer and pheasants. I developed this from a book called "Ringnecked Pheasants of Iowa" which studied the change in land use and the change in pheasant populations. Even though it is a pheasant study...it is absolutely incredible for deer!

Based on this research and my philosophies, almost all public land is at an extreme low for carrying capacity and completely at the mercy of Mother Nature. A lot of private land is in the same condition. However, if you ever see a property with really good deer and pheasants...look at its land use...I bet it's pretty close to Management by Thirds.

Land use has changed and I don't think it is going back. So...the only way to address it is to make it happen...implement the design and make it happen.

[smsmith]

Calling the DNR or groups and asking the tough questions usually ends up in political statements and lip service. Get the media involved...Dennis Anderson, Outdoor News, Outdoors Weekly, etc. Email and media to the legislators also. It's A LOT of work...but that is about the only way change will happen. Otherwise they will just keep doing what they are doing.

Wayyyyyy ahead of you

[hockeybc69]

Brooks is already asking the tough questions outside the DNR

http://www.twincities.com/outdoors/ci_24...erd-populations

http://www.startribune.com/sports/outdoors/240206421.html

[smsmith]

Brooks is already asking the tough questions outside the DNR

http://www.twincities.com/outdoors/ci_24...erd-populations

http://www.startribune.com/sports/outdoors/240206421.html

Not to mention a few articles in MN ODN and being closely working with Sen. Dave Brown (note that name on the maps...the DNR wouldn't give public information to the "public" until Sen. Brown got involved).

I'll throw some kudos out to Representatives Kresha and Newberger and Senator Gazelka as well. All those folks are involved. Senator Gazelka has requested a town hall meeting in Morrison County.

[hockeybc69]

Landdr

Here is what we have accomplished on our land.

We have done extensive work on the property over the last 10 years to improve the land.

- Old stand aspen harvest

- Buckthorn removal

- Planted over 10,000 conifers

- 14 acres CRP

- 3 acres of NWSG

- 6 acres of food plots(corn, beans, clover)

- Hingecutting core bedding areas

- Retired 25 acres of wetlands in Wetland Easement Program

- Wetland restoration through USFWS

This year we went one step further to try and attract and hold a deer or two. We took 40 acres of our land and made it a sanctuary. We did not enter that 40 acre oak stand all summer or fall. A very tough decision for us since we only own 120 acres, but nothing we have done has improved our deer hunting experience for years. We saw no more deer this year with our sanctuary than any other year.

I am running out of ideas on what to do.... Not giving up though.

[LandDr]

Excellent!

I have not read all of the articles, but I am hearing a lot about anterless tags and harvest tags in general.

Question...if the management of public land was changed to increase the carrying capacity of the land, which resulted in 3X or 5X as many deer, would there be as many issues or concerns with current permits and harvest allocations? This also means increasing the carrying capacity so there is a healthy deer heard within no or minimal habitat destruction.

Thanks

[LandDr]

Hockey

I would like to discuss this further, but I think we should take it off this thread so it doesn't keep posting for everyone. Then we can come back after the discussion and maybe give my thoughts on it. email me at [email protected] if you would like to discuss some more...I have a few questions for you.

Thanks

[smsmith]

email me at [email protected] if you would like to discuss some more...I have a few questions for you.

Small world, I communicated with you or someone else at Habitat Now earlier this winter/late fall about green globe turnips.

[SmellEsox]

Can anyone find any information on habitat loss or destruction due to too many deer in the past at any point in the last several years?

I have googled and cannot find anything, even back in the 2003 era when harvests were at record levels and population estimates were high.

I don't disagree that habitat improvement is a great idea. But why is habitat improvement over what we have today required to bump up populations in areas that are being managed so low now?

Agree. Current habitat wouldn't need to be touched and it could easily support double the deer we have now in ag country in a sustainable way.

[SmellEsox]

Excellent!

I have not read all of the articles, but I am hearing a lot about anterless tags and harvest tags in general.

Question...if the management of public land was changed to increase the carrying capacity of the land, which resulted in 3X or 5X as many deer, would there be as many issues or concerns with current permits and harvest allocations? This also means increasing the carrying capacity so there is a healthy deer heard within no or minimal habitat destruction.

Thanks

I don't think it would do anything to increase the number of deer. They'd still be getting shot. In fact, it would make it easier to shoot the few deer that are left. All we need to do is back off doe harvest and we'd be good. People wouldn't be complaining about a lack of deer.

[LandDr]

SmellEsox...the question was more geared towards "public" land and to people that hunt public land.

Regarding private land in ag country however, a lot of ag country is one really bad snow storm away from really impacting our pheasant and deer population...and we are not even into the weather that February brings. More deer means more mouths to feed...and many feel the wildlife are already under severe stress.

I have thick stands of spruce I planted back in 1995 with around 54 acres of food plots in and around the winter cover. But this type of set up is not found consistently through the landscape.

In ag country around here, each hunter can take one deer, or across the hwy they can take two. Harvest limits won't allow all the deer to get shot. I usually see exponential population growth with pheasants and deer with implementation of a good design up to the carrying capacity of that design. With this design...trust me, it is not easy to hunt these deer!

[SmellEsox]

It would be nice if DNR would increase deer management on public lands. They do plant food plots on some large WMA's (ie. Mille Lacs WMA). Still, deer numbers on public land are determined by harvest not carrying capacity. Deer are kept far below carrying capacity in most of the state by the issuance of doe permits. Especially in the transition area of the state where the current habitat can hold far more deer than what is managed for. There would be no need for improvement of habitat in most of the transition zone. Raising the CC would do nothing without reducing antlerless harvest.

[lichen fox]

I really haven't had a lot of time yet to go over all the numbers, but it "looks like"...the over all goal for the state is 1 adult deer per hunter per permit area..."on average"...I don't disagree with that, as the success ratio varies from 20 - 40% throughout the state...so, that tells me that to keep "everybody" (hunters, ins. companies, anti-hunters, forestry, farmers, wolves, etc.), happy, happy, happy....they are realistic goals...the goal being to have about half a million adult deer in MN for the hunters that purchase license and the rest are for cars to hit, and wolves to eat!

[PurpleFloyd]

SmellEsox...the question was more geared towards "public" land and to people that hunt public land.

Regarding private land in ag country however, a lot of ag country is one really bad snow storm away from really impacting our pheasant and deer population...and we are not even into the weather that February brings. More deer means more mouths to feed...and many feel the wildlife are already under severe stress.

I have thick stands of spruce I planted back in 1995 with around 54 acres of food plots in and around the winter cover. But this type of set up is not found consistently through the landscape.

In ag country around here, each hunter can take one deer, or across the hwy they can take two. Harvest limits won't allow all the deer to get shot. I usually see exponential population growth with pheasants and deer with implementation of a good design up to the carrying capacity of that design. With this design...trust me, it is not easy to hunt these deer!

Very well thought out,sensible posts. Thanks for contributing and I agree with what you are saying.

[Jameson]

Can anyone find any information on habitat loss or destruction due to too many deer in the past at any point in the last several years?...

MN Arboretum last winter, there is some shotgun hunting near it and they allowed some bow hunting there:

http://www.weeklynews.com/main.asp?SectionID=10&SubSectionID=10&ArticleID=11672

Would think the metro bow hunters group probably has many news articles available about deer eating METRO habitat.

As far as outstate, in our State Forests or something, I don't recall any.