Expected worst Deer harvest in 20 years!

[jay83196]

Who's job isn't thankless! Do a bad job (make mistake) your gona get critisized or called out....consider them lucky, if many of us did our jobs like that costing our company loss of $ (instead of deer) how many of us would get fired! It's called life what do you want , pat on the back for doing poor to fair job at best!

[Getanet]

The drainage of Pelican Lake is hardly a situation that hasn't been exposed to sunlight. It is no doubt controversial, but it has been in the public spotlight for a number of years now and there has been many articles written about it and opportunities for public input and debate.

Here are some articles if you really want to learn about this, and how the DNR is being pretty accountable for how they are approaching the issue:

http://www.startribune.com/sports/outdoors/246080461.html

http://www.twincities.com/ci_21655319/pelican-lake-drawdown-gets-boost-legacy-amendment-funds

[NDSUbison_z7]

This post isn't meant to be a complete defense of the DNR, because there is definitely things they could have done better. (i.e. keeping too many areas as intensive harvest for too long to name one).

However I think there is a lack of acknowledgement from deer hunters in that the requests given to the DNR throughout the years have changed regulations and are partially responsible for the problem we have today. The regulations have been moving towards more opportunity for hunters, whether in # of tags or # of days to hunt. As those things happen, harvest % for a typical hunter goes up and everybody is happy. Now you throw in nature (weather, wolves, etc) taking a larger chunk from the population for a few years and you have an issue. Has the DNR been late to act; sure that may be true. But in the end, the only answer is restricting the % of success for hunters as a whole. Since no one is in favor of fewer days in the woods or no license at all; bag limits/lottery/bucks only is the only way to do it. Fewer hunting days or less hunters would be far more effective of a way to manage the population, but that would mess with the social impacts of hunting that very few are willing to give up.

Its just very easy to blame the DNR and not realize that we have caused part of the problem and need to be willing to sacrifice something to make things better...

[hockeybc69]

I 100% support any idea that restricts harvest. Whether its shorter seasons, cant hunt all the seasons, restricted tag availability.... Awesome ideas.

But the fact still remains that until the DNR increases density targets, none of it will matter. If they want low densities, then it will never change for anyone. The DNR holds the cards. Period.

Trigger restraint is all grand to sit and preach, but it will never gain widespread support and the killing will ultimately continue. Our trusted advisor(DNR) has the power to improve things.

[jay83196]

Hockeybc69 I agree except closing season the current restrictions should be enough in most areas. I agree 100% well said!

[LandDr]

That's interesting...thanks for the links and info.

It still looks like the people using the resource want it as a fishery. A fishery is providing the biggest economic benefit. So why not leave it as a fishery?

Looks like DNR special interests and personal agendas...just like what you see with deer and pheasant management across the state.

I might agree with the comments regarding if you don't do a good job or make mistakes, you get fired. There are too many special interests and personal agendas. Just one very example is grazing WMAs for the sake of prairie management...good luck to any pheasants or deer that are out on those units...snow ball in h*ll would have a better chance.

[BuckSutherland]

And Buck, I"m not blaming corn. We both know, however, it's a tooth in the gear.

[Getanet]

It still looks like the people using the resource want it as a fishery.

[LandDr]

Getanet...I do appreciate your links and information, but I have heard enough justification from the DNR and other interest groups on why they do stuff. Just as the grazing of WMAs...I have heard all of their justification...but it still stands that a pheasant or deer probably will not make it the winter on those units that were grazed. I spoke with Fred (Bengston) regarding a 320+- acre tract in Stearns county that was slated for high diversity prairie restoration and asked if we could design in some thermal cover and food sources. His comment to me via email was that there was no need for that on this unit...therefore DOA. All the govt and non-profits are getting together to talk about why there aren't more pheasants...but no consideration of developing thermal cover and food to get more hens through the winter.

Accountability and performance...it's not there. If I designed a 320 acre property for a landowner which resulted in 25 pheasants and 10 deer on it, I would be fired.

[SmellEsox]

I know it's off the subject, but Pelican Lake should be a wildlife lake. We have bazillions of walleye and panfish lakes in the state. Good waterfowl lakes are becoming more and more rare.

[Getanet]

Would you rather they just do stuff and not provide justifications for it? Or not do anything?

You tried to show Pelican Lake as an example of how the DNR isn't accountable and does things with no "sunlight or questions asked" and it's pretty apparent this wasn't the case. You may not agree with the decision, but the process was pretty transparent.

Then, because you didn't see eye to eye with Bengston in the past, he's automatically wrong on the Pelican Lake situation? It's becoming clear who has the agenda here...

[FISHINGURU]

In fact, until last winter the very proponents of the current audit were preaching that hunters should pass on small bucks and put a doe in the freezer if a Hunter wanted meat.

I had plenty of debates where I pointed out that does drive the population and that taking a small buck was actually better for the population. Of course all I heard was things about balanced herds, 1:1 Buchanan to doe ratios and not shooting small bucks.

[laker1]

Over the years in the big woods country the ratio was always about 6 or 7 anterless deer to 1 buck.

[smsmith]

Over the years in the big woods country the ratio was always about 6 or 7 anterless deer to 1 buck.

It may seem that way, but for a good many years bucks have comprised over half the harvest in MN...perhaps in a small area of MN more adult does are taken than bucks...but that doesn't hold throughout the state. I believe last year it was 52% antlered bucks, and the rest of the harvest was adult doe and fawns...statewide anyway.

http://www.qdma.com/articles/the-reality-of-doebuck-ratios

[Bureaucrat]

This year, I preferred to not pull the trigger at all, and hold out for a larger herd and a few bucks to survive to age 2.

[PurpleFloyd]

Maybe some of you guys need to switch to Geico...

[laker1]

The harvest percentage by sex has nothing to do what the composition of the herd is at time of hunting season.

Hunters choose to shoot bucks over fawns and does,bucks are in the rut.

Maybe you can only shoot bucks.

Think about it,good fawn production alone you could get a 30 to 50% increase in the population easy.

Wildlife managers use to tell be it was like 6 to 1 or 7 to 1.

Actually over the years I probably see about 7 anterless to every buck I see.

If you see different it is because,bucks,does and fawns all act different.

[laker1]

I also agree nobody just has to keep shooting 5 or more deer just to have a little more fun. Show a little more restraint and just enjoy the outdoors.

We don't have to be like a raccoon in a chicken coop and just keep killing.

I have know problem with party hunting but there is a limit.

Like a friend of mine goes to Dakota shoots 50 or more geese,doesn't know what to do with them after he is done shooting. He just didn't know when to quit.

[Todd Caswell]

I know it's different for all parts of the state, but we hunt State land North Central, Bucks only this year. 5 Guys, 4 1/2 days sitting on the stand 2 1/2 opener 1 day last weekend and today.. 62 deer seen, 7 Bucks and 3 Harvested.. Pretty much on track from what we have done for the past 20 years, only we didn't have any antlerless permits this year..

[fishuhalik]

I understand this is a deer thread, but regarding accountability...

Just had someone in saying the DNR and DU are scheduled to drain Pelican Lake new St. Micheal which he stated is an excellent pan fish lake with some good walleyes...no rough fish except for a few bullheads...land locked so rough fish can't get into it. He expressed that this is a great lake that keeps bait shops busy, etc.

I love duck hunting...but if it is a good fishing lake and contributes to the local economy, leave it alone! Appears on the surface to be more special interest projects without consideration of the local economy and what the majority of the people using the resource actually want.

You have no idea how much this made me laugh!! I'm not laughing at you, I'm laughing at the guy that said this cuz I think this is exactly what's wrong with so many people in this state & the MNDNR. Misinformation & not having a clue what is actually going on in particular areas. Pelican doesn't have a single walleye in it & it's LOADED with bullhead & other rough fish. The guys passing the regs have no idea what the deer populations are in the different parts of the state or the unique challenges that each different herd faces. Some areas need more tags, some need less. Some need a lottery, some don't. How's about we appoint someone in each zone that knows what the hey they're talking about. Someone from that area, that knows what regs would help each area. None of you could possibly know what is best for each area of our state & some of you are darn good hunters/herd managers. To say that the entire state should be lottery, antlers only or qdm is ridiculous IMHO

[Bureaucrat]

I also agree nobody just has to keep shooting 5 or more deer just to have a little more fun. Show a little more restraint and just enjoy the outdoors.

We don't have to be like a raccoon in a chicken coop and just keep killing.

I have know problem with party hunting but there is a limit.

Like a friend of mine goes to Dakota shoots 50 or more geese,doesn't know what to do with them after he is done shooting. He just didn't know when to quit.

Bingo.

[BuckSutherland]

Quote:

Minnesota hunters have registered 111,000 deer through the third and last weekend of the firearms deer season, a drop of 31,000 from the same period a year ago.

But the lower harvest is by design. Regulations were put in place to make more deer - especially does - off-limits to increase Minnesota's deer herd.

The state Department of Natural Resources says so far this year during special hunts and the archery, early antlerless and firearms season, hunters have killed 127,000 deer, down from the 2013 to-date harvest total of 144,000.

Additional deer will be harvested during the late southeastern season, which runs through Nov. 30, and the muzzleloader season, which begins Nov. 29 and continues through Dec. 14. The archery season runs through Dec. 31

.

[Jameson]

So......This year to date is 127,000 and last year at this point it was 144,000. How far off from last year are some of the units? Are some that were managed last year and HC this year have the same kill totals for each year? Where are the biggest losses/gains in kills?

We really aren't that far off of last year's kill even with tighter regs following a severe winter.

[ESSGuy]

My hunt is the tale of 3 weekends. Opener 3 days had 5 guys seeing 1 deer and 1 wolf. Second weekend, thurs - Sunday 3 guys saw 24 does and 1 buck. Last weekend fri- Sunday 3 guys saw 4 does and 1 buck. None killed. I was ready to lynch the dnr after first weekend, then after the second and third I realized there are deer, they are just hard to find.

[PurpleFloyd]

Now that the Wisconsin DNR has their preliminary numbers, ours don't look that out of line considering the reduction in doe tags the DNR put out. Their biggest declines seem to be in the North and due to weather and wolves and since the MNDNR's impact stops at the border it seems unreasonable to blame the drop in Wisconsin on them. Also, now that we see the harvest numbers, it seems that focusing on the deer densities as was done in the MDDI pamphlet and propaganda comparing the two states didn't equate to them avoiding a decline in harvest. Also, in talking to those I know in my old stomping grounds in Ashland and Bayfield counties as well as the Hayward area they have had a similar decline in population as Minnesota has had compared to the 10 year average.

Here are the harvest numbers for Wisconsin so far:

[PurpleFloyd]

I also checked into the forecast for Iowa, which is another state that is often used as an example of a better managed state for deer and found this article interesting.

Quote:

IOWA’S 2014 SHOTGUN DEER SEASON PREVIEW

By Joe Wilkinson

Iowa Department of Natural Resources

December-like cold and snow in November make it seem as if Iowa’s shotgun deer season has already past. However, it is still a week away. That leaves time to contact landowners, sight in your shotgun and tend to all the details before you get out and enjoy Iowa’s outdoors with friends and family.

“I expect we’ll see a harvest similar to last year,” said Dale Garner, chief of Wildlife for the Iowa Department of Natural Resources. “The extreme cold weather during mid-November kept many bow hunters out of their tree stands leaving some really nice bucks for the shotgun seasons.”

Expect about 75,000 hunters across Iowa in the first shotgun season, December 6-10, and then another 50,000 head out December 13-21, during the second gun season. Each contingent will also pack along thousands of antlerless tags, to extend their prospects.

If you are a fan of cold weather…and have a muzzleloader, that December 22-January 10 late season attracts hunters holding about 30,000 tags. That number likely will drop, though, with fewer snapping up county antlerless tags.

Iowa’s shotgun seasons allow for group drives; drivers pushing deer toward blockers. Anyone in the group may tag a downed deer—with their own tag. That stands in contrast to other states---and even Iowa’s more solitary muzzleloader and bow seasons. However, it has proven to be an efficient method for taking deer, since modern deer hunting was introduced here in the early 1950s. Whatever the season, any deer must be tagged before it is moved or within 15 minutes—whichever comes first.

It also holds the potential for danger, as drivers move closer to, or across, their friends on a drive.

“That’s why wearing solid blaze orange is mandatory. At least the minimum (torso covered). More is better,” stresses DNR recreation safety officer Pat Jorgensen. “Our number one cause of deer hunting incidents involves a hunter shooting at a running deer…with someone in the area. Recognize what stands in front of and behind the target!”

For several years now, deer hunters have noticed fewer whitetails than in the early 2000s. That is by design. A decade ago, state lawmakers instructed the DNR to reduce the deer population, after steady growth through the previous few decades.

With addition of county and season specific antlerless tags, generous quotas, and a couple extra seasons, near Thanksgiving and during January, hunters responded. The deer herd is now at mid-1990s target levels, in all but a handful of counties.

With a 33 percent drop in harvest numbers since 2006, Iowa’s Natural Resource Commission this summer approved a reduction in antlerless tag quotas in 72 counties. The remaining 27 north central and northwest counties have no county antlerless tags…and hunters may take only antlered deer during the first shotgun season.

Expect fewer tags, than the 359,956 which went over the counter in 2013-2014. And that was down 11 percent from the 2008 peak. Iowa’s overall deer harvest across all seasons last year was 99,400…down 34 percent from the peak.

“Now is a good time for the DNR to work with hunters and landowners to help develop a better understanding of proper deer management; including the benefits of harvesting does and keeping deer numbers at ecologically acceptable levels,” stresses DNR wildlife management biologist Terry Haindfield. “Hunters working with landowners at the local level are the best and most efficient way to keep deer numbers acceptable and provide a high quality deer herd.”

Sounds like they enjoy some of the same party hunting tradtions as we do and it also sounds like their DNR is using the same methods to reduce the herd that are being used in Minnesota. Is there an IDDI? or a WDDI in Wisconsin calling for audits to figger out why the deer numbers and harvest numbers are down from 10 years ago?

[leechlake]

I'm not buying the Iowa statistics. I saw Lee and Tiffany's show where they planted 400 acres of foot plots with their $750,000 piece of equipment. Flash forward to November and Tiff took the Gator out to find the "Old 14" and she killed him dead in his tracks within an hour. Does were eating in the food plots all day. Later when they went back to their Lodge aka farm house the other hunters told similar stories, they even brought Michael Waddel to hunt with them (he had 2 does tags and they wanted to kill some does)

Seriously the states do look similar and yes 127k deer vs 144k from 2013 isn't too far off but if we go down another 10% next year? Cmon Winter, be kind to our deer.

[laker1]

Last year this week we were approaching 1 foot of snow in the woods in many areas. Hope the snow holds off this year.

[Farmsfulltime]

Wouldn't surprise me a bit if the respective states compare management with each other on whats working and what is not . Thanks for the information Floyd it clears up some misrepresentations of data going around.

[smsmith]

or a WDDI in Wisconsin calling for audits to figger out why the deer numbers and harvest numbers are down from 10 years ago?

WI's new CDAC process which is currently underway is one outcome of the most recent audit of their DNR (completed in spring of '12 if I recall correctly). WI DNR undergoes audits of some sort quite frequently.

Another outcome of the most recent WI audit was separating doe tags into public and private lands...that was done to attempt to increase the number of deer on public land (and to decrease them where needed on private land). That audit also resulted in changing the deer management units in WI. They now use counties rather than DMUs. Some counties are broken into farmland/forest in areas where the habitat is drastically different. Higher numbers of antlerless tags are available in farmland areas of counties like those than in forestland.