I wonder where the state line is?

[UNDBowhunter]

This just got posted on Northwoods Mapping Facebook Page

[mntatonka]

looks like Wisconsin is overpopulated.

[UNDBowhunter]

Or is MN underpopulated? Northern Wisconsin has the same habitat and climate/weather compared to Northern MN. So if habitat is the same, and the climate/weather is the same (I think Northern Wisconsin gets more snow), why does Northern MN have a far less deer population.

This does not account for the wrong deer density estimate that the DNR admitted that they underestimated the winter kill last spring in Northern MN.

[jentz]

I dont believe that map is accurate,To much border offset! I lived and hunted area 183 for many years,No big difference in the state line,No river or any defining means of determining the Wisc to Mn side.Yet they show Mn at 1-7 pop.Wisc over 24?? In a threads differance??

Good map to draw hunters to Wisc.

[SmellEsox]

The amazing thing is that WI hunters are complaining too! Imagine if they hunted over here. They wouldn't believe deer exist here! I guess it's all what you get used to.

[minky]

Yep, I don't agree with their numbers.

[candiru]

Different methods of counting deer?

[walleye18]

Really???? Don't believe it....not the Minn data that is.

[wildernessbob2063]

From Wisconsin DNR

http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/wildlifehabitat/documents/wsi.pdf

".....A winter with an index of less than 50 is considered mild, 50 to 79 is moderate, 80 to 99 is severe, and over 100 is very severe. ....in very severe winters, up to 30% of the deer herd may be lost, dramatically affecting the overall populations."

WSI Scale:

Less than 50 = Mild

50 to 79 = Moderate

80 to 99 = Severe

Greater than 100 = Very severe

Point Assignment:

1 point for day w/ ≥ 18" snow

1 point for day w/ ≤ 0° F

From Minnesota DNR

http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/recreation/hunting/deer/wsi_cty_map14.pdf

<= 0 degrees F and an additional

point for each day with a snow

depth >= 15 inches.

End-of-season values <100

indicate a mild winter; values

>180 indicate a severe winter.

So.....according to MN DNR 100 is mild and Wisconsin DNR says 100 is very severe. ( the only difference in their calculation is the 15" snowfall vs 18" You can't tell me that 3" of snow allows for an 80 point spread for severe between states but I'm no statistician either.

Can someone help me understand this?

[11fish1]

Wisconsin calculates a high of 0&#8457; Minnesota a low of 0&#8457;? That would make a big difference.

[hockeybc69]

This map has nothing to do with WSI.

Its simply reported deer populations by the DNR for each state.

Very eye opening.... And interesting.

[LABS4ME]

I agree nothing to do with WSI... Looks to be a draft as to densities per sq/mile they are shooting for per deer unit. I do believe WI tries to carry more deer than MN does per sq/mile...

Good Luck!

Kenn

[Jameson]

Interesting that the MN information was gotten through a Senator, the WI information is available online. Wonder why.....

edit: kind of a big deal here: WI measures deer per square mile of habitat, MN measures per total square mile.

[hockeybc69]

Quote:

WI measures deer per square mile of habitat, MN measures per total square mile.

Great, so the numbers are even skewed higher in Wisconsins favor.

[Jameson]

Great, so the numbers are even skewed higher in Wisconsins favor.

Nope. In our farm country we count 100% of the land, Wisconsin does not count 100% of there land. So, if a square mile has 5 deer on it in MN it counts as 5 dpsm. If a square mile in WI has 5 deer on it, but half of it is farm field the other half woods n fields, then that square mile gets counted at 10 dpsm. (might be a terrible way of explaining it, I apologize in advance)

But not all the farmland is not counted. Something like the first 100 feet of field edge get counted as deer habitat. So in my example it would be something like 8 dpsm in WI.

Still a higher number for the same number of deer.

[mntatonka]

You have a source for how Wisconsin measures it Jameson? It'd certainly make the numbers a heck of a lot closer if both were measured the same. Granted, wisconsin would still be higher, but they're also nearly 50% woodlands (habitat) compared to minnesota's 25ish

[B. Amish]

edit: kind of a big deal here: WI measures deer per square mile of habitat, MN measures per total square mile.

yup, if that is true, the map means nothing.

[B. Amish]

http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/hunt/documents/winterpopperdr.pdf

here's the link to the WI map cited as the source of info. says right on the map: "Overwinter Deer Population Density 2012, per Square Mile Deer Range"

[Jameson]

You have a source for how Wisconsin measures it Jameson? ...

sorry, no source or link. Just what I have read in the past.....somewhere. Look at the link to the WI map and notice in their legend it does not say dpsm, but dpsm of deer range....or something like that.

The thing to think about is that MN is the only state that I know of that calculates density per total square mile. All other states take out the middle large farmer's fields, pavement, etc. Why doesn't MN do the same?

[mntatonka]

sorry, no source or link. Just what I have read in the past.....somewhere. Look at the link to the WI map and notice in their legend it does not say dpsm, but dpsm of deer range....or something like that.

The thing to think about is that MN is the only state that I know of that calculates density per total square mile. All other states take out the middle large farmer's fields, pavement, etc. Why doesn't MN do the same?

B.Amish posted the link, but thanks.

Minnesota doesn't do it that way, probably because it's easier math. It wouldn't really be hard to do, since the data on land usage is public record. About half the state is considered farmland (although that could include a percentage of woods as well), so the numbers are already doubled.

Wisconsin would still have more deer per acre of habitat, there's no doubt about that. But, they've got right around 100,000 more hunters, and from a quick search shot about 50,000 more deer than Minnesota in 2013. So in reality that tells me that Wisconsin's deer numbers are actually probably pretty close to the same deer-per-hunter as Minnesota's.

[UNDBowhunter]

I think MN does that for the Deer/ Sq MI also though.....I know when you look that the Deer sq mi on their harvest data - water acres is taken out for sure.

I agree that the surveys methods might be different, it would be interested to see how MN and Wisc. surveys differ.

[sticknstring]

So in reality that tells me that Wisconsin's deer numbers are actually probably pretty close to the same deer-per-hunter as Minnesota's.

I have a very tough time believing that. Would like to see some numbers to show any correlation.

Quick hopped on WI DNR site and found this over-winter population graphic. It uses DPSM per total area, not habitat area. I think the graph previously posted has more merit than we think. Now we just to find the amount of hunters per area and we can compare deer to hunter ratios.

2012 WI Pre-fawn DPSM

[B. Amish]

2012 WI Pre-fawn DPSM

yep, looks like the map that should've been used to compare. quick look suggests it would decrease the 24+ (dark blue) area be half.

[UNDBowhunter]

Deer range in Wisconsin is defined as all permanent cover-- forest, woodlot, brush-covered land or marsh-- at least ten acres or more in size. Agriculture and grass fields within 5 chains (100 m) of permanent cover are also included as deer range. Areas of permanent cover smaller than 10 acres can be included as deer range if they are known to be commonly occupied by deer. - http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/hunt/popgoal.html

This isn't much different than MN -especially in Northern MN- refer to my first post.

MN also splits their tables by farmland zone and Forest Zone - http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/recreation/hunting/deer/deer_density_prefawn_spreadsheet11.pdf

So looking at all this info - MN and Wisconsin surveys are similar

[UNDBowhunter]

No matter what map you use on this comparison Wisconsin still going to have higher deer pop anyway you slice it.

[DonBo]

No matter what map you use on this comparison Wisconsin still going to have higher deer pop anyway you slice it.

Not nessesarily, not if you ask those of us who hunt that side of the river. Antlerless tags have been given away like candy for over a decade now. Most WS hunters are beothching about deer numbers, just like MN hunters are. DNR can make up stats to fit what they want, but hunters in the field have a pretty good idea of population trends.

[NorthwoodsMap]

Hey guys - I haven't been on this forum in awhile.....

Someone told me that my maps are starting a good chat on here.

One quick glance at the recent Wisconsin Map that just got posted - the map colors will change some but Wisconsin still will have more deer. I will hopefully have time to update the map so you have both to compare to.

[sticknstring]

Really appreciate all your help on the maps - excellent job!

[sticknstring]

Ran a quick comparison in the driftless region as the habitat is basically the same and easy to compare. This is using firearm deer hunter density per square mile and dpsm (total area).

MN areas

339 0-1 (deer per hunter)

341 0-1

342 0-1

345 0-1

346 0-1

WI area (across the river - same habitat)

60A .67

61 3.07

59D 2

74A 1.86

If you knew similar habitat, I suppose you could compare other areas as well, but it would be much more difficult.

[mntatonka]

Ran a quick comparison in the driftless region as the habitat is basically the same and easy to compare. This is using firearm deer hunter density per square mile and dpsm (total area).

MN areas

339 0-1 (deer per hunter)

341 0-1

342 0-1

345 0-1

346 0-1

WI area (across the river - same habitat)

60A .67

61 3.07

59D 2

74A 1.86

If you knew similar habitat, I suppose you could compare other areas as well, but it would be much more difficult.

That's assuming those estimates for Zone 3 are remotely accurate, which isn't likely. If there was only 0-1 deer per hunter in Zone 3, they wouldn't still have early antlerless areas in spots, would have minimal crop damage, and there would have been more hunter's choice or even lottery areas like much of the rest of the state in the same deer/hunter value.