WHY

[walleyehunter80]

why is the thread about deer population locked? I wanted to respond!

[walleyehunter80]

There is too much habitat getting taken away in southern Minnesota. We need to reduce hunting pressure or bring the habitat up to sustain it! Right now public lands are a joke for 75% of the deer season (I hunt all private land). Peoples groves around their houses hold more deer than public hunting lands do.

I would like the DNR to do a survey on how many hunters south of State HWY 94/10 hunt public land and how many hunt private land.

There is a huge problem with how our state handles the licenses and permits. They should take a page out of the turkey success book. I honestly believe not everyone should be able to hunt in Minnesota (including myself and my family) each year. No more over the counter licenses!

[smsmith]

why is the thread about deer population locked? I wanted to respond!

Good question.....

[Todd Caswell]

There is too much habitat getting taken away in southern Minnesota. We need to reduce hunting pressure or bring the habitat up to sustain it! Right now public lands are a joke for 75% of the deer season (I hunt all private land). Peoples groves around their houses hold more deer than public hunting lands do.

I would like the DNR to do a survey on how many hunters south of State HWY 94/10 hunt public land and how many hunt private land.

There is a huge problem with how our state handles the licenses and permits. They should take a page out of the turkey success book. I honestly believe not everyone should be able to hunt in Minnesota (including myself and my family) each year. No more over the counter licenses!

Good luck with that one, trying to completly change a system that has been in place for EVER??? Yah right, and why?? Didn't realize we had a deer shortage.

[smsmith]

Didn't realize we had a deer shortage.

Really? The 44%+ reduction of the deer kill in the last decade didn't strike you as being one possibility?

[Todd Caswell]

Quote:

Really? The 44%+ reduction of the deer kill in the last decade didn't strike you as being one possibility?

Did it ever occur to you that earlier in the decade when almost all areas were either management, or intensive harvest that maybe we had too many deer?

[mntatonka]

Todd, that hasn't occurred to most people that are complaining about low deer numbers. We've all gotten so complacent and lazy having so many deer over the past decade, that now we are all made have to do a little work to shoot a deer

[smsmith]

Did it ever occur to you that earlier in the decade when almost all areas were either management, or intensive harvest that maybe we had too many deer?

44% too many? Okay...some areas were supposed to be reduced by 25%.

Which unit do you hunt?

[smsmith]

Todd, that hasn't occurred to most people that are complaining about low deer numbers. We've all gotten so complacent and lazy having so many deer over the past decade, that now we are all made have to do a little work to shoot a deer

I'll ask you the same question I asked Todd...what unit do you hunt?

[mntatonka]

I deer hunt 346 and bear hunt 156, where I have close friends that live and deer hunt.

[BuckSutherland]

Did it ever occur to you that earlier in the decade when almost all areas were either management, or intensive harvest that maybe we had too many deer?

Then we should have taken the same approach as they take to the stupid wolf. Once there is too many deer they would die off in areas where there are too many. Just like once there are too many wolves they will die from manage and lack of food. The population was just fine for thousands of years until our govt biologist and legislature blanked it all up. Its pretty obvious the much higher populations were sustainable otherwise they would have been dying all over the state, and that wasnt the case.

[minky]

I wouldn't mind some changes to the deer season but I would really miss deer hunting if I could not go every year!

Would getting rid of party hunting help deer numbers?

If that happened I would be OK with only being able to get one deer a year(this I got 2).

[mntatonka]

Minky, cross tagging if bucks is already illegal in zone 3, and the population is dropping there as well. So no, getting rid of party hunting will not fix the problem except int he fact that we will lose hunters, and harvest less deer because of that fact

[smsmith]

I deer hunt 346 and bear hunt 156, where I have close friends that live and deer hunt.

Thank you for sharing that info. Unit 346 had 16 dpsm (pre fawn) at the beginning of this year according to the DNR. Historically it has ranged from 21 in 2008 to the current 16.

16 is far from a "lot" of deer, but it is 6 more per sq. mile (pre fawn) than I'm currently dealing with. If half those deer are does, that would mean another 6(ish) dpsm come hunting time. So..in a unit with 16 dpsm pre fawn you'd be looking at another 12 dpsm (conservatively given the fact MN harvests more bucks than does) than a guy who is hunting a unit with 10 dpsm pre fawn.

I'll ask you a follow up question seeing as you're in a unit that directly borders WI...what do you think the densities are in the WI DMU right across the river from you?

[mntatonka]

Considerably higher, due to extreme amounts of leasing. They've also got major problems with deer damage and overpopulation, and had disease problems as well.

You've posted maps about deer per hunter, and how terribly low it is. Yet you've got approximately the same number of deer per hunter as 346 does on average, and for the most part hunters in 346 aren't complaining about low numbers. Yes, you've got less deer per square mile, but you've also got less hunters per square mile.

[Todd Caswell]

Quote:

I'll ask you the same question I asked Todd...what unit do you hunt?

I hunt public land in the longville area , for years we were a 2 deer area and even a 5 deer area for a couple, the last 2 it has been a lottery area. sure deer numbers are down from what they were then, but I believe they are where they need to be now. Our group of 5 seen 39 deer the first 3 days of the season, 37 the year befor. And no we don't horn hunt if it's a legal buck and it's a good shot we take it..

[Gordie]

Todd, that hasn't occurred to most people that are complaining about low deer numbers. We've all gotten so complacent and lazy having so many deer over the past decade, that now we are all made have to do a little work to shoot a deer

Exactly, hunting was never supposed to be easy. Its a lot of work and when John Doe (sorry for the pun) can't walk to is heated box stand from the comfort of his truck that is parked 20 ft away and not shoot a deer, that must mean there is no deer left in this state.

[smsmith]

Considerably higher, due to extreme amounts of leasing. They've also got major problems with deer damage and overpopulation, and had disease problems as well.

You've posted maps about deer per hunter, and how terribly low it is. Yet you've got approximately the same number of deer per hunter as 346 does on average, and for the most part hunters in 346 aren't complaining about low numbers. Yes, you've got less deer per square mile, but you've also got less hunters per square mile.

Not a lot of leasing around LaCrosse. I lived in WI for most of my life and LaCrosse isn't a highly sought out area for leasing. Densities there are in the mid 40's per square mile.

Recent DNR surveys indicate that hunter satisfaction in zone 3 has dropped considerably....

I agree that your hunter densities are higher, but seeing as you have APR's that'd mean more folks have to pass on those yearling bucks. Better chance of a few guys at least seeing a deer given those circumstances.

I'm happy that your happy...I'm not. There is no biological reason for MN having the deer densities we currently do.

Just wanted to add...no disease in the WI DMU right across the river from you

[smsmith]

I hunt public land in the longville area , for years we were a 2 deer area and even a 5 deer area for a couple, the last 2 it has been a lottery area. sure deer numbers are down from what they were then, but I believe they are where they need to be now. Our group of 5 seen 39 deer the first 3 days of the season, 37 the year befor. And no we don't horn hunt if it's a legal buck and it's a good shot we take it..

Okay...if you're happy with 13 dpsm...then we don't have a lot to discuss I suppose.

[Todd Caswell]

[Then we should have taken the same approach as they take to the stupid wolf. Once there is too many deer they would die off in areas where there are too many. Just like once there are too many wolves they will die from manage and lack of food. The population was just fine for thousands of years until our govt biologist and legislature blanked it all up. Its pretty obvious the much higher populations were sustainable otherwise they would have been dying all over the state, and that wasnt the case./quote]

You also have to remember that deer/auto collisions have alot to do with the number that the DNR feels is a healthy population. Insurance companies don't like an overpopulated deer herd.

[Todd Caswell]

Quote:

Exactly, hunting was never supposed to be easy. Its a lot of work and when John Doe (sorry for the pun) can't walk to is heated box stand from the comfort of his truck that is parked 20 ft away and not shoot a deer, that must mean there is no deer left in this state.

Not only do they want more Deer, but Bigger Deer (APR) , and less people hunting them ( a lisc. drawing). Sorry but I don't see it happening..

[smsmith]

You also have to remember that deer/auto collisions have alot to do with the number that the DNR feels is a healthy population. Insurance companies don't like an overpopulated deer herd.

The DNR will tell you (and swear up and down) that the auto insurance industry has absolutely nothing to do with deer population goals here. Of course...there were two auto insurance reps on my public stakeholder meeting the last time around

Car/deer collisions are down 70% in some areas of central and eastcentral MN.

[mntatonka]

Move north a bit. I'm across the border of buffalo county, which has more leased land than virtually anywhere else. That part of Wisconsin was highly sought after for trophy hunting until cwd hit. It's still sought after, but there's less to go around since it's already all locked up.

That part of Wisconsin has more crop damage than even we do, so that's a definite sign there's too many deer. Not to mention browse lines you can even see from the road. As well as making it much harder to control the spread of disease.

[smsmith]

Not only do they want more Deer, but Bigger Deer (APR) , and less people hunting them ( a lisc. drawing). Sorry but I don't see it happening..

Who is "they"?

[smsmith]

Move north a bit. I'm across the border of buffalo county, which has more leased land than virtually anywhere else. That part of Wisconsin was highly sought after for trophy hunting until cwd hit. It's still sought after, but there's less to go around since it's already all locked up.

That part of Wisconsin has more crop damage than even we do, so that's a definite sign there's too many deer. Not to mention browse lines you can even see from the road. As well as making it much harder to control the spread of disease.

Yep, you're correct about leased land in Buffalo Cty. It is still highly sought after...probably the most highly sought after "deer hunting" land in the U.S. No CWD in Buffalo Cty. though.

That part of WI does have crop damage. Dpsm's in the upper 40's over winter is too many deer....dpsm's in the teens over winter is too few. If you move east in WI to Waupaca Cty they have overwinter densities in the 70's

[smsmith]

Another question for the guys who are happy/satisfied with our current deer herd:

Lou Cornicelli is on record as saying MN should probably aim for deer kills in the 210-220K (http://samcook.areavoices.com/2012/01/19/minnesota-dnr-will-reassess-deer-population-goals/)

Do you think he's wrong? Should we be aiming for deer kills more like we have this year (170K)?

About 500K deer hunters in MN...Around 720K deer licenses/tags sold in 2012..about 2000 more licenses/tags sold in unit 222 than were adult deer in 2013....harvests of 170K? I just can't get on board with that idea.

[mntatonka]

I think 90% of what Lou does is wrong, but that's more personal opinion of his character than anything.

[PurpleFloyd]

There is no biological reason for MN having the deer densities we currently do.

Deer densities are determined by more things than just Biology. The number one factor that needs to improve if you want higher deer harvests while also not limiting hunters is to create more habitat that can sustain the population. The harvest also is impacted by things like the weather and the crop harvest. This year we had a pretty good year with a pretty good success ration but we were fortunate considering the weather was not very good considering the snow and wind we got that made the deer bed down and stop moving plus the hundreds of acres of standing corn that was in the fields through the whole season, which was unheard of considering how late the season ran this year.That being said if the weather was better and if the corn was out I have no doubt our party would have had nearly a 100% success rate rather than the 73% we had.We are also losing so much habitat. With land prices so high it has become very cost effective to remove every abandoned grove and tree line in order to turn it into black dirt. The only reason at this point that our hunting is looking pretty good is our area is losing hunters faster than it is losing habitat so the lack of pressure offsets the lack of cover but at some point that may very well change.

But when you are talking private land the owner needs to do what is in their best financial interest. So with that said, I realize in some areas there is an opportunity to increase carrying capacity bit I do know that all over the state there are homes popping up all over the place in areas that used to be open spaces where people used to hunt. That limits the places hunters have to occupy and it concentrates them into smaller and smaller areas,increasing hunter density while the loss of habitat lowers deer density. With the housing boom we have gone through in the last 2 decades and much of it happening where developments are put in "natural" settings you cannot help but to realize that what worked a decade ago might not be possible or practical today. This may not be the case in your specific location. It's a big state and a very diverse state.

So how do we go about increasing deer density and how do we do it in a way that keeps the population stable? I think everyone sees the WSI this year and knows that much of the herd is going to be stressed by the long,cold winter but if the herd was say 30% higher, what impact would that have on the herd? If it is tough for the deer we have to get the food and cover they need to survive, how would there be enough food or cover to go around with another 30,000 deer in the state? Also, in terms of Biology- if the deer herd increases that means more food for Wolves and Coyote. Will increasing the deer herd also increase the predator population and will that increase offset much of the gain we got from whatever regulation we put in place to grow the herd?

Not saying you are wrong, just adding points to the discussion.

[smsmith]

I think 90% of what Lou does is wrong, but that's more personal opinion of his character than anything.

Guess he's not my favorite guy either...but I'd take him leading the DNR over Leslie. At least Lou has hunted and worked with deer.

What is your opinion on the question I posed....stay at 170Kish for a total kill or get back to 200K+?

[smsmith]

Deer densities are determined by more things than just Biology. The number one factor that needs to improve if you want higher deer harvests while also not limiting hunters is to create more habitat that can sustain the population. The harvest also is impacted by things like the weather and the crop harvest. This year we had a pretty good year with a pretty good success ration but we were fortunate considering the weather was not very good considering the snow and wind we got that made the deer bed down and stop moving plus the hundreds of acres of standing corn that was in the fields through the whole season, which was unheard of considering how late the season ran this year.That being said if the weather was better and if the corn was out I have no doubt our party would have had nearly a 100% success rate rather than the 73% we had.We are also losing so much habitat. With land prices so high it has become very cost effective to remove every abandoned grove and tree line in order to turn it into black dirt. The only reason at this point that our hunting is looking pretty good is our area is losing hunters faster than it is losing habitat so the lack of pressure offsets the lack of cover but at some point that may very well change.

But when you are talking private land the owner needs to do what is in their best financial interest. So with that said, I realize in some areas there is an opportunity to increase carrying capacity bit I do know that all over the state there are homes popping up all over the place in areas that used to be open spaces where people used to hunt. That limits the places hunters have to occupy and it concentrates them into smaller and smaller areas,increasing hunter density while the loss of habitat lowers deer density. With the housing boom we have gone through in the last 2 decades and much of it happening where developments are put in "natural" settings you cannot help but to realize that what worked a decade ago might not be possible or practical today. This may not be the case in your specific location. It's a big state and a very diverse state.

So how do we go about increasing deer density and how do we do it in a way that keeps the population stable? I think everyone sees the WSI this year and knows that much of the herd is going to be stressed by the long,cold winter but if the herd was say 30% higher, what impact would that have on the herd? If it is tough for the deer we have to get the food and cover they need to survive, how would there be enough food or cover to go around with another 30,000 deer in the state? Also, in terms of Biology- if the deer herd increases that means more food for Wolves and Coyote. Will increasing the deer herd also increase the predator population and will that increase offset much of the gain we got from whatever regulation we put in place to grow the herd?

Not saying you are wrong, just adding points to the discussion.

I may have asked you this already, so if I did forgive me....what part of the state do you hunt in?

Here in southern Todd Cty. there is very little habitat loss to the "ethanol craze" or to new housing development.

Your points are of course valid, however I'd counter that much of the state isn't experiencing what you describe. The southern 1/4 to 1/3 certainly is. I'm always amazed at how "different" the weather, habitat, and people are when I'm down that way.

You bring up winter kill in years like this. How does our neighbor to the east have densities 2-8 (or more) times what we have? Obviously WI isn't as far north as MN, but believe me...winter in at least the northern half of WI is just as harsh as it is here. Those WI counties in the Lake Superior snow belt get pounded with far more snow than most of MN and they experience the deep freeze just as badly. Most of those counties have densities at least 1.5 times (several 2.5) what I have here in southern Todd Cty. The habitat here is far more conducive to supporting deer than those counties.

I'm concerned that some folks here have accepted what the MN DNR has been saying as fact. Perception is reality. If folks generally trust the DNR and are continually exposed to their press releases....it becomes "fact". I don't think much of what the DNR has been telling folks is completely accurate.