Audit Push: Time To Act!

[smsmith]

Those pheasant harvest numbers of birds are down because we harvest too many females?

I think the article accurately stated why pheasant harvest numbers were down...then rather than admitting those issues are accurate; Lou blamed pheasant hunters for essentially being lazy. Sounds awfully familiar to why Camp Ripley hunters had a terrible year last year

[PurpleFloyd]

Because they are lazy or because weather impacted population?

[smsmith]

Because they are lazy or because weather impacted population?

You're a bright guy PF...I think you're just stirring the pot with your last two posts

[PurpleFloyd]

Nope, it's just my nature to question things. Thus I was questioning the correlation between the decline in the deer population and the decline in other species over the same time. Is that something you are not comfortable discussing?

[SmellEsox]

Nope, it's just my nature to question things. Thus I was questioning the correlation between the decline in the deer population and the decline in other species over the same time. Is that something you are not comfortable discussing?

If you are implying that when pheasants die, deer do too, you are totally wrong. Pheasants aren't even native here and have much higher mortality due to winter, wet spring, etc. compared to deer. Winters rarely have an impact on whitetails in the transition zone. Even last winter which was a top 5 winter in the last 100 years probably didn't have a huge impact on deer in the transition zone. I'm sure fawn production declined this spring and we lost some of last year's fawns, but our numbers were down before we had these tough winters. It is due to overharvest of antlerless deer which is proven to be the highest source of mortality for deer in the transition and where you are from PF. In most years it is even the highest source of mortality up north too. Even over wolves. Yes winter had an impact this last year, but it just exacerbated what high antlerless harvest had already inflicted on the population.

[smsmith]

Nope, it's just my nature to question things. Thus I was questioning the correlation between the decline in the deer population and the decline in other species over the same time. Is that something you are not comfortable discussing?

I'll discuss most anything. Your previous posts just seemed purposely obtuse to me

[LandDr]

Deer are native to MN but what really was their historic range? Where there deer in central and northern MN prior to 1900? I spoke to one of my relatives that grew up here back in the early 1920s and he doesn't recall seeing any deer. It was open prairie back then and I don't think deer were very common. It wasn't until ag crops were developed further north that deer started moving further north because they could survive the weather then.

I hear ya PF...a few nice winters in a row and everyone talks about all the deer and pheasants. MN was on it's way to a million bird harvest about 3 or 4 years ago...but then we had a few bad winters in a row. Or did everyone start shooting hens??

[smsmith]

I could have sworn that winters had been quite mild during the same time span our deer herd was under a steady decline. The winter of '11-'12 was pretty much non-existent.

So I'm to understand that one bad winter ('13-'14) and one pretty much "normal" winter ('12-'13) is the reason our deer kill is possibly going to be the lowest in 3+ decades? Okay...........

[SmellEsox]

Here is a link to pre-settlement vegetation types in MN. The transition was always there (at least since the glaciers) and it was trees on the edge of prairie. There was lots of woods in Douglas Co. Big woods/hardwoods. Lots of oak savannah and other forest types. The transition zone was a very productive area and I'm sure whitetails with there incredible adaptability were present in good numbers. What those numbers were is debatable but I would guess they were the dominant deer species in the area.

http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/gla/histveg/images/mnorveg.gif

[PurpleFloyd]

Dp

[PurpleFloyd]

Go back a little farther. Start about 1995 and track winter/spring through this year.

[smsmith]

Go back a little farther. Start about 1995 and track winter/spring through this year.

Lay out your theory for me PF....your theory, your research to do and type up

[Bear55]

So I'm to understand that one bad winter ('13-'14) and one pretty much "normal" winter ('12-'13) is the reason our deer kill is possibly going to be the lowest in 3+ decades? Okay...........

12-13 winter was fine but the spring was brutal, tons of snow into April-May in the transition zone. I think we had 4 pretty sizeable snowstorms in April alone. Harvest took a pretty good hit last year because of it, with last winter we should see numbers down again.

[mntatonka]

12-13 winter was fine but the spring was brutal, tons of snow into April-May in the transition zone. I think we had 4 pretty sizeable snowstorms in April alone. Harvest took a pretty good hit last year because of it, with last winter we should see numbers down again.

oh come now, bad springs have nothing to do with fawn crop, it's only the antlerless harvest that causes a drop! /sarcasm

[smsmith]

oh come now, bad springs have nothing to do with fawn crop, it's only the antlerless harvest that causes a drop! /sarcasm

I don't recall anyone saying that bad springs have nothing to do with the fawn crop, perhaps I missed that somewhere.....

Now I've got it...the spring of '13 and winter of '13-'14 are the major reasons our deer kill this year will likely fall below 150K for the first time since 1997 (or, as according to Steve Merchant, perhaps our lowest kill in over 30 years).

Thanks for clearing that up for me guys

[Bear55]

Never said they are the only causes, many of us have been "whining" about too many doe tags for 5 or 6 years now. It seems like once the hard winters kicked in and the population really dropped in the rest of the state people finally started catching on, you guys are just late to the party.

[smsmith]

you guys are just late to the party.

Late to the party? Do you mean late to start whining or late to start doing something about it? "You guys" meaning those of us in the transition zone or what?

[smsmith]

For anyone who didn't sign up for deer management updates from the DNR...here's the latest....Looks like the map isn't able to copy and pasted on this forum.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources header

Deer Notes - August 28, 2014

Deer population goal setting

Map of deer population goal-setting plansAs planned, Minnesota DNR will be revisiting deer population goals for the remainder of the state in 2015 and 2016. In contrast to the nine, southeastern deer permit areas under discussion in 2014, the process over the next two years will result in decisions for nearly 90 permit areas (40 in 2015 and 46 in 2016). Over the course of the next few months, the goal setting process will begin to roll out in the following five goal setting blocks:

G1: Superior Uplands Arrowhead DPAs: 117, 122, 126, 127, 180

G2: North Central Plains Moraines DPAs: 169, 172, 184, 197, 210, 298

G3: Pine Moraines DPAs: 241, 242, 246, 248, 251, 258, 259, 287

G4: East Central Uplands DPAs: 152, 155, 156, 157, 159, 183, 221, 222, 225, 247, 259

G5: Sand Plain - Big Woods DPAs: 223, 224, 227, 229, 235, 236, 249, 285, 338, 339

The process will be similar to those used in the past, with a number of public input opportunities as well as the use of citizen advisory teams. We encourage all interested folks to participate.

Because we plan to set goals and implement harvest strategies in the same year (i.e. goals set by spring so that we will be working to move populations toward goal the following fall), we have a fairly tight timeline and specific dates for the process, such as public meeting dates, are still in development.

A general timeline is available on the Deer Management web page. We will update information over the coming months. One upcoming and important component for the process will be an announcement in early October to solicit advisory team applications. Watch the DNR HSOforum and local news sources for more about the process in the coming months.

Hunter and landowner surveys

Stakeholder desires are one important piece of background data that will be considered in the discussion regarding deer population goals. The University of Minnesota has been contracted to administer hunter and landowner surveys to gauge deer population desires based on a statistically valid sample of hunters and landowners within each goal block. If you own land in one of the goal blocks listed above or if you hunted in one of the areas during 2013, you may have already received a survey.

As the random sample for each survey in a goal block is drawn (hunter survey or landowner survey), the University staff have reviewed the survey recipients to ensure that one individual does not receive duplicate surveys in a goal block.

These surveys were specifically designed to inform the goal setting process; additional surveys are under development to address other deer management considerations, such as specific hunting season regulations.

Deer data and the HSOforum

The 2013 deer harvest report is now available on the Deer Management web page under the "Resources & Links" tab. During the course of the next year, much of the background data and reports that have been posted to the "Deer Hunting" web page will migrate over to this "Resources & Links" tab.

Have a suggestion for Deer Notes? Send them to [email protected].

[laker1]

There is a reason why are deer kill will fall below 160,000. Winterkill etc.,too large of a deer harvest-deer harvest in the 200,000 range are just to high. You can't sustain that. Hunters are getting also more efficient at shooting what is out there with all the new gar etc.

[smsmith]

I'd disagree that 200K is unsustainable

http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/recreation/hunting/deer/2003_harvestreport.pdf

http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/recreation/hunting/deer/2012_harvest_total.pdf

200-220K should be the "sweet spot"....it isn't sustainable when you start overharvesting does.

There will always be "blips" due to extreme winters and ideal hunting conditions...but averaging right around 200K long term is certainly sustainable.

[mntatonka]

I'd disagree that 200K is unsustainable

http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/recreation/hunting/deer/2003_harvestreport.pdf

http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/recreation/hunting/deer/2012_harvest_total.pdf

200-220K should be the "sweet spot"....it isn't sustainable when you start overharvesting does.

There will always be "blips" due to extreme winters and ideal hunting conditions...but averaging right around 200K long term is certainly sustainable.

I'd agree that 200k should be a sustainable average across the state. It should really go anywhere from 180-220k depending on the seasonal variables. That number seems to be socially and biologically acceptable judging by the last dozen or so years.

[ANYFISH2]

Stu, do you if 214, 215, 213, 221, ect... goals where already set recently? I see they are not up for review in 2015-2016.

If they did do you know what thier new goals are?

[smsmith]

214,213 and 215 are on the slate for 2015/16. 221 is going to be reviewed this year (2014/15), they are part of the "G3" East Central Uplands DPA

86 units will get reviewed and have new goals set in the next two years.

This page shows units to be reviewed and those that have been done

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/mammals/deer/mgmt.html

[PurpleFloyd]

I'd disagree that 200K is unsustainable

http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/recreation/hunting/deer/2003_harvestreport.pdf

http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/recreation/hunting/deer/2012_harvest_total.pdf

200-220K should be the "sweet spot"....it isn't sustainable when you start overharvesting does.

There will always be "blips" due to extreme winters and ideal hunting conditions...but averaging right around 200K long term is certainly sustainable.

I would disagree with the term blips.

We are not making cookies here. Lots of factors determine what the deer density is in a given year and to think that doe control( which I do believe in) can be a mechanism used to keep the population perpetually at a level that you are targeting is a bit naive.

Weather, natural predators,disease, habitat, food stock,Hunter density and many other factors all contribute to the formula and all of the environmental factors are constantly in flux. And what works in other states has no guarantee that it will work here just like what works in the north may have detrimental effects in the south.

[smsmith]

Weather, natural predators,disease, habitat, food stock,Hunter density and many other factors all contribute to the formula and all of the environmental factors are constantly in flux. And what works in other states has no guarantee that it will work here just like what works in the north may have detrimental effects in the south.

I'm pretty sure that's what we pay our MN DNR folks to figure out...right? My understanding is that our DNR people haven't been able to meet and talk with other Midwest/Great Lakes states DNR staff for a few years...due to budgetary constraints. That to me is unacceptable. Deer hunting brings in about $18 million a year and we spend less than 25% of that amount on actual deer management. Its time our DNR people get the tools/money they need to more effectively and efficiently manage our deer herd.

[mntatonka]

I would disagree with the term blips.

We are not making cookies here. Lots of factors determine what the deer density is in a given year and to think that doe control( which I do believe in) can be a mechanism used to keep the population perpetually at a level that you are targeting is a bit naive.

Weather, natural predators,disease, habitat, food stock,Hunter density and many other factors all contribute to the formula and all of the environmental factors are constantly in flux. And what works in other states has no guarantee that it will work here just like what works in the north may have detrimental effects in the south.

outliers would be the proper term then. There should be a consistent long-term average though, and roughly 200k did seem to be a good average over the last 15 or so years. When the harvest was above 250k, people complained about deer eating their crops and gardens. When it was below about 180k, hunters started complaining about not enough deer. It's pretty clear that there has to be a happy medium there somewhere.

[Bear55]

Late to the party? Do you mean late to start whining or late to start doing something about it? "You guys" meaning those of us in the transition zone or what?

Late to the whining party, lots of guys (myself included) have been harping about management and doe tags back in 2008-10. The DNR can't control the winter, they didn't do a great job before that but the time to act was then not now. The population is way down, the only thing to do is be patient while the herd rebuilds itself the old fashion way. I've said all along the DNR is learning on the job, we just went through a record deer population explosion followed by a major decline. I have to imagine they learned a thing or two in that time, its not an easy job and I doubt anyone has all the answers. A couple of low harvests and mild winters and things will pick up again.

[smsmith]

A couple of low harvests and mild winters and things will pick up again.

I'll agree that is possible...if the herd is allowed to recover anyway. My fear is that our DNR would like to see annual harvests right around what we had last year. They give us a one year reprieve, we get a mild-moderate winter this year...and next year they go right back to selling way too many anterless tags.

[PurpleFloyd]

I'd disagree that 200K is unsustainable

http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/recreation/hunting/deer/2003_harvestreport.pdf

http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/recreation/hunting/deer/2012_harvest_total.pdf

200-220K should be the "sweet spot"....it isn't sustainable when you start overharvesting does.

There will always be "blips" due to extreme winters and ideal hunting conditions...but averaging right around 200K long term is certainly sustainable.

To your belief that overharvesting does is the cause of the drop in population, go to page 5 of the deer harvest report. It shows the number of permits applied for, offered and the number harvested as well as the success rate. Over the last 3 years the doe harvest has been very pedestrian and the success ratio is also not out of the norm. Not as high as the middle of the last decade but in line with the 90's.

Using the data in that chart I have a hard time finding any correlation between antlerless harvest and your lack of deer.

To me,if you look at that chart and compare it to the weather patterns you see a much closer correlation.in 1995-1996.there was a bad winter as well as the next winter and you can see The harvest dropped then milder winters allowed the population and harvest to rebound even though permits were liberalized we had bad weather again around 2008-2009 which hurt the population and some bad springs in the following years that hurt them when fawns dropped.

[PurpleFloyd]

225 ranked number 9 in the State in terms of deer harvested per square mile. You don't get that without having lots of deer to harvest.214 is even better. both are way better than 299 for sure.