Expected worst Deer harvest in 20 years!

[SmellEsox]

Been following along on this discussion for a while...

It's always seemed to me that managing deer seems to have the same challenges as managing northern pike on the fisheries side.

To one person they're a trophy species, and they're willing to accept lower density and lower success rates, and things like tighter harvest restrictions and lottery tags if it means creating the conditions for a chance at a trophy animal.

To others, they're a consumable species, and what they desire is a higher chance to shoot a deer - any deer. An opportunity for a trophy is a minor consideration if it's a consideration at all.

Add to that pretty vast differences in habitat, weather, new environmental factors like the reintroduction of a large predator, hunter and human density, plus the infamous 'social considerations' like crop damage and car insurance costs of hit deer, etc., and it gets to be a pretty complex picture pretty fast.

I don't have an opinion on whether or not they're doing the right thing or not - I don't know enough about deer management to have a credible one. But I do worry that the gap between the trophy hunter and the consumption hunter is getting wider and wider, and that inevitably leads to conflict.

It would be easy to manage for both IMO. You start by having higher population goals.

[96trigger]

Quote:

What I find interesting is that most hunters in MN (evidenced by commenters in this thread) are so accustomed to poor deer hunting that the immediate assumption they make when watching people on TV shoot mature bucks is that it's a canned hunt. It's not conceivable to them that in other states wild mature bucks exist in quantities that seeing one is not a "once in a lifetime" event, but rather a "once a week" event.

I really like this comment. I think it speaks a lot of truth that some are afraid to admit because it might affect how they hunt. It is much easier to sit and say that the hunting will never be that good and stick with the status quo, than to go out on a limb and take a risk and change things.

[hockeybc69]

Quote:

the hotspot of too many deer is probably private. they can't make anybody pull the trigger.

Then why penalize the entire permit area by setting high tag allocation numbers because of the private hot pockets?

The DNR wants deer shot in a permit area, but the trouble areas that have lots of deer, will not be addressed if the parties managing it wont pull the trigger.

[smsmith]

I really like this comment. I think it speaks a lot of truth that some are afraid to admit because it might affect how they hunt. It is much easier to sit and say that the hunting will never be that good and stick with the status quo, than to go out on a limb and take a risk and change things.

As a transplant, that is about the only thing I can come up with when attempting to figure out MN's deer hunters.

[96trigger]

We are Minnesotans, we can live with good enough.

[fr0sty]

And to totally derail this thread, the constant product pimping to over the top. It realy is patheric.

Now back to our regularly scheduled program, "Why the MN DNR hates deer and deer hunters", brought to you by your local insurance company, Minnesota farmers and your local chapter of Petulant Deer Hunters of America...

[smsmith]

We are Minnesotans, we can live with good enough.

lol...

The deer hunting discussions here and elsewhere I've participated in remind of watching Viking football in local establishments. There is an underlying tone that the expectation is less than stellar. It baffles me that so many here are indeed happy with "good enough".

[Eric Wettschreck]

As a transplant, that is about the only thing I can come up with when attempting to figure out MN's deer hunters.

Maybe what you're not understanding is 10 people will define good/poor hunting 10 different ways. Some want monster huge racks and are willing to go years without shooting a deer to get the trophy. Others want to put meat in the freezer and could care less about antlers. And there are people who fall somewhere in between those 2 ends of the spectrum.

Good enough to some is great to others. Really bad to some is okie dokie to others. The problems happen when people who want things their way try to get regulations changed that effect everyone who is just peachy with what they have.

DNR does what it can to please the majority. There is absolutely no way everyone will be happy. In the end, no matter how many doe tags get handed out in any particular zone it's not the DNR pulling the trigger. If you want more deer in your area, don't shoot the ones that are there.

[Farmsfulltime]

Audit count about 545 concerned hunters in the state of Minnesota doesn't sound to main stream to me

[smsmith]

I don't know how this discussion turned into one about antlers...other than my sharing what my harvest choices are. At no point did I ever say that is what others' choice should or should not be.

What I struggle to understand Eric, is why so many MN deer hunters A. support the MN DNR and B. support a deer herd that has been reduced significantly.

I'm not talking about APRs or anything else with a singular goal of improving buck age structure....simply having more deer on the landscape to see and (possibly) shoot. That's it.

[Farmsfulltime]

Most deer density opinions are backed by large buck worship , underlying agenda increase deer numbers then we will work on Aprs in those areas QDMA forums of the past prove it , That's not what average ( Minnesota ) deer hunters value or that would be the current state of deer hunting in Minnesota today Pretty simple really

[Eric Wettschreck]

I don't think too many deer hunters are very happy with the reduced herd size in the upper 2/3 of the state. I'd venture a guess that most of them are downright not very happy with it. So, this year the DNR issues less doe tags. What more were they supposed to do this season? What a lot of these same deer hunters will not admit is a few years ago they were shooting every deer they possibly could. A lot of them are fishermen and I think we all know fishermen don't really tell the 100% honest to God truth all the time every time.

I'll go out on a limb and say next year there will be a lot of people griping because all they saw were small bucks and small does. Granted these are the deer that were born the spring of 2015 and will help re-populate the herd, but guys don't get that. They want their more deer and they want them NOW dammit. Of course, some of those smaller does will get shot. Again, not by the DNR but by the very people who want more deer.

You personally may not be advocating antlers, but this is Minnesota. Many of us have had antlers forced down out throats because other people want them. Similar to "Party hunters are bad" because other people don't party hunt. Or, "Deer drives should be outlawed" because others don't do drives.

[smsmith]

Thanks for the input Eric...and for the record I agree with you on hunters griping about what they see or don't see next year.

As for APRs, party hunting, and deer drives..I'll leave that for the DNR to deal with. All I want is a reasonable sized deer herd

[smsmith]

Most deer density opinions are backed by large buck worship , underlying agenda increase deer numbers then we will work on Aprs in those areas QDMA forums of the past prove it , That's not what average ( Minnesota ) deer hunters value or that would be the current state of deer hunting in Minnesota today Pretty simple really

There's really no sense in continuing to attempt to communicate with you Fft. You have a set of preconceived notions and by God...you're right and nobody else can possibly have a valid point.

I guess time will tell what average (Minnesota) deer hunters value, right?

[96trigger]

Quote:

Maybe what you're not understanding is 10 people will define good/poor hunting 10 different ways. Some want monster huge racks and are willing to go years without shooting a deer to get the trophy. Others want to put meat in the freezer and could care less about antlers. And there are people who fall somewhere in between those 2 ends of the spectrum.

I think what most people are getting at is that under the right conditions, Minnesota should be able to satisfy both sides. Right now, in a significant area of the state, it is satisfying neither.

[Farmsfulltime]

Ditto ,,Sounds like everyone here and certainly everyone is untitled to their opinion

[PropsterII]

I think what most people are getting at is that under the right conditions, Minnesota should be able to satisfy both sides. Right now, in a significant area of the state, it is satisfying neither.

This is it in a nutshell. It doesn't have to be either of the two extremes that Eric alluded to. There is a middle ground and I think it is fairly obvious that except for given pockets where certain hunters are more than satisfied, there is a much larger majority of customers that the DNR is not satisfying. And therein lies the fear that Trigger speaks of - "Who moved my cheese?"

[SmellEsox]

I think what most people are getting at is that under the right conditions, Minnesota should be able to satisfy both sides. Right now, in a significant area of the state, it is satisfying neither.

Right on the button!

[mntatonka]

All I want is a reasonable sized deer herd

And that's exactly what the regulations are designed to do this year. So you'll get exactly what you want within the next couple of years.

Rather than slamming the DNR as a whole, it seems like you should be campaigning against one specific employee, since he seems to be the entire problem you have with the DNR. I still have heard very few (if any complains) about any other specific wildlife managers.

[smsmith]

I think what most people are getting at is that under the right conditions, Minnesota should be able to satisfy both sides. Right now, in a significant area of the state, it is satisfying neither.

Bingo. With a reasonable sized deer herd (20-25 dpsm pre fawn in most of central MN) most every type of hunter is going to be happy. That was what existed in the late 90's and early 00's. MN was cranking out total harvests in that 200k range so the meat hunters were happy and at the same time there were plenty of mature bucks taken as well. Why the herd had to be reduced to the point it has been is beyond me.

It seems to me (personal opinion fellas) that the DNR was reacting to CWD being found in WI (2002). In fairness, when I have asked folks in St. Paul they have denied that was the case. However, I believe (personal opinion fellas) they crafted a "message" that the herd was too large, got the mainstream media on board through showing damage in northern deer yards (which still exists today, even though the numbers of deer in most of northern MN are a fraction of what they were then...yarded deer create browse damage, just a fact) and crop damage in SE MN...and the idea that "too many" deer existed in MN became "fact" in the vast majority of Minnesotans' minds. A new "social process" of managing deer was implemented in the mid 2000's (public stakeholder groups) which gave the appearance that the "public" was determining the size of the deer herd.

Only problem with that is that the "public" wasn't determining the size of the herd, the densities had been established by the DNR before the meetings ever began. All the DNR had to do was convince the "public" that the pre-established goals were "right". Speak to some of the guys who sat on those teams...you'll find out that when the DNR was questioned about the densities the meetings would come to an end with the statement of "sorry guys, this is how its going to be".

I think legitimate public stakeholder teams could be a great way to go about managing our herd. Present them with accurate, recent data (not data from 2005) to include documented crop depredation reports (not estimates from farmers/foresters/orchardists without verification by the DNR), documented car/deer collision data, and recent hunter satisfaction surveys. Then...let those teams make a decision on their own, without the DNR telling them what they will or will not decide. If those decisions/recommendations don't fit with the DNR's ideas, then use science to show why they cannot be implemented as the team wants. If we're going to have a deer herd managed socially, then at least make the decisions reached by the public legitimate.

End of rant...for now

[Eric Wettschreck]

I think what most people are getting at is that under the right conditions, Minnesota should be able to satisfy both sides. Right now, in a significant area of the state, it is satisfying neither.

A few years ago people were screaming to the DNR there's too many deer running around out there. So they issued a bunch of doe tags, management tags, intensive harvest, etc tags. People shot the snot out of the herd and it's now much smaller. This year many of those special tags don't exist in the attempt to increase the herd size.

Couple years ago in SW MN the herd size was terribly small to the point where extreme SW MN had zero doe tags and I belive (not 100% sure) even youth tags, archery, and muzzy was buck only. Couple years later we have deer out the wazzo around here. A bit of a success story if you ask me.

Again, it's the hunters not the DNR out shooting deer.

You say under the right conditions everyone can be happy. Without implementing APR's, eliminating drives, and party hunting, what are the right conditions?

[smsmith]

Again, it's the hunters not the DNR out shooting deer.

Absolutely true...but a bit of restraint on the DNRs part a couple years earlier would have been welcome.

[SmellEsox]

A few years ago people were screaming to the DNR there's too many deer running around out there. So they issued a bunch of doe tags, management tags, intensive harvest, etc tags. People shot the snot out of the herd and it's now much smaller. This year many of those special tags don't exist in the attempt to increase the herd size.

Couple years ago in SW MN the herd size was terribly small to the point where extreme SW MN had zero doe tags and I belive (not 100% sure) even youth tags, archery, and muzzy was buck only. Couple years later we have deer out the wazzo around here. A bit of a success story if you ask me.

Again, it's the hunters not the DNR out shooting deer.

You say under the right conditions everyone can be happy. Without implementing APR's, eliminating drives, and party hunting, what are the right conditions?

Who was screaming? I don't remember the screaming. I think the only ones screaming were a few farmers and DNR Wildlife employees.

The way to make ALL hunters happy is to have more deer on the landscape. This gives the most opportunity to all types of hunters. You get more deer by limiting antlerless harvest for awhile and then gradually allowing increased antlerless harvest. Up north, it will be what it will be with winters and wolves, but in the NW, central and SE, we could sustainably have higher deer numbers.

[Eric Wettschreck]

The way to make ALL hunters happy is to have more deer on the landscape. This gives the most opportunity to all types of hunters. You get more deer by limiting antlerless harvest for awhile and then gradually allowing increased antlerless harvest. Up north, it will be what it will be with winters and wolves, but in the NW, central and SE, we could sustainably have higher deer numbers.

I agree and have stated as such it's a success story in SW MN. This year the DNR issued much less antlerless tags in attempt to increase the herd size. Not you personally, but I see all over the interwebs guys squaking they didn't get a doe tag and they didn't see a deer either.

Yes, the herd size is small in a big chunk of the state. Less antlerless tags issued. What more is the DNR supposed to do?

[DaveT]

What are some of your favorite hunting shows? I would be surprised if most episodes aren't filmed at a location where a person would have to pay thousands for the same hunting experience. Very few shows are filmed on public land, I know some are, but they are the minority.

Hunting with a guide or outfitter is not wrong or makes someone less of a hunter, but it's certainly not an experience that public wildlife agencies should be aiming to provide.

There are very few places outside of Texas that have huge contiguous tracts of managed land. Your average Midwestern outfitter may own a few hundred acres and he leases the rest in pieces here and there in his area. The people who use his services are able to hunt a good area with stands and acomodations taken care of for them. That is the service they are paying for and when you are trying to make a living making TV shows you need someone to do that work for you so you can maximize the time you spend hunting in front of a camera.

You can drive to any of those areas and knock on doors until a local gives you permission to hunt. You can hang your own stands and get your own hotel room and feed yourself for a fraction of what the outfitter is charging. And you will enjoy some pretty great deer hunting. I know this is true because I have done it in several states.

Great deer hunting creates the opportunity for the outfitter, the outfitter doesn't create great deer hunting.

[hockeybc69]

Quote:

What more is the DNR supposed to do?

Raise target densities in areas that can hold more deer would be a nice start.

10 dpsm prefawn target densities in the Little Falls area is simply ridiculous as an example.

[Getanet]

There are very few places outside of Texas that have huge contiguous tracts of managed land. Your average Midwestern outfitter may own a few hundred acres and he leases the rest in pieces here and there in his area. The people who use his services are able to hunt a good area with stands and acomodations taken care of for them. That is the service they are paying for and when you are trying to make a living making TV shows you need someone to do that work for you so you can maximize the time you spend hunting in front of a camera.

You can drive to any of those areas and knock on doors until a local gives you permission to hunt. You can hang your own stands and get your own hotel room and feed yourself for a fraction of what the outfitter is charging. And you will enjoy some pretty great deer hunting. I know this is true because I have done it in several states.

Great deer hunting creates the opportunity for the outfitter, the outfitter doesn't create great deer hunting.

Humor me, what are two or three of your favorite deer hunting shows?

[PropsterII]

You can drive to any of those areas and knock on doors until a local gives you permission to hunt. You can hang your own stands and get your own hotel room and feed yourself for a fraction of what the outfitter is charging. And you will enjoy some pretty great deer hunting. I know this is true because I have done it in several states.

Great deer hunting creates the opportunity for the outfitter, the outfitter doesn't create great deer hunting.

Right on. Can't wait for you or Crappie's recap and pics of your annual Kansas hunt

[SmellEsox]

Less antlerless tags issued. What more is the DNR supposed to do?

Eric, the scary thing to me is that DNR in my area of central MN wanted to have intensive harvest plus early antlerless seasons here. Only the commish's insistence lowered it to hunter's choice. They also need a better way to estimate deer numbers. I think their model stinks. And as hockey said, higher population goals.

[smsmith]

Eric, the scary thing to me is that DNR in my area of central MN wanted to have intensive harvest plus early antlerless seasons here. Only the commish's insistence lowered it to hunter's choice. They also need a better way to estimate deer numbers. I think their model stinks. And as hockey said, higher population goals. [/quote

Yup, same here. That same DNR manager wanted to have a more liberal season structure in Camp Ripley this year too...even though he predicted a total harvest of 150...which is at least 250 off the 10 year average.