Expected worst Deer harvest in 20 years!

[BuckSutherland]

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

Yep, snow affects them way more than the cold.

[PurpleFloyd]

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.

And yet the end result is they are doing the same thing ours is and they are seeing declining numbers of deer compared to the 10 yr average that were done purposefully because it was determined numbers were too high combined with bad weather and wolves. Yet you prefer their deer reduction to ours because they spent more government time and resources to do it? That seems odd unless you are a liberal in which case it makes perfect sense.

In the end the overall hunting and numbers across state lines seems pretty similar irregardless of which DNR is in charge and what methods they use to establish their numbers. It looks to me like the whole foundation the MDDI based their argument on is a house of cards and the more I dig into it, the more I am convinced it was never more than an ill conceived plan put together with very little research or forethought which in turn puts into question their whole motive. But then again their own words put that to rest a while ago.

[laker1]

Sounds like the audit and changes created confusion in Wisconsin more than anything and are zones in Minnesota suppose to be set up by ecological types and also development. The zones are not perfect and maybe can be adjusted,but don't mess with it that part is working.

I hate the idea within the same zone,if you own land you get a pile of more doe permits. It sticks and stinks with TEXAS deer management from the individual who did the audit. The have's and have not's.

Like I said we got a great system that only needs tweaking.

[smsmith]

I was simply answering the P.F. I get it guys, you're all happy with the MN DNR and just want to let them do what they do. Fine. Enjoy the results.

[laker1]

Talking about tweaking it and getting involved with advisory committees(sp)and work try to work with each other. If it doesn't work than try something else.

Yes we over harvested. Yes we went thru two of the hardest winters on record in a row.

Yes we got certain Game Managers went overboard on issueing permits? Most game zones changed quotas too what we asked for this year. Maybe we are on the right track.

Your area state representative can also get involved in talking to and about specific areas of concern.

It sounds like much of the southern half of the state had a great season with abundant deer.

I think the DNR is trying to make changes in procedures,lets see what happens and get involved and communicate with them.

Thru all this we are forgetting about habitat,that could lead to very bad end results.

[PurpleFloyd]

I was simply answering the P.F. I get it guys, you're all happy with the MN DNR and just want to let them do what they do. Fine. Enjoy the results.

So you are only happy with the DNR if the state is spending more money governing them? Because that seems to be the primary difference between Wi and Mn. In the end they are both following the same plan of reducing their herds from the numbers they had 10 years ago.Throw Iowa into that mix as well.

[tfran123]

Has anyone noticed that what you see on your desktop doesn't match what shows up on an iPad? For example, on this thread there was some back and forth about food plots vs baiting, why do those recent replies only show on the iPad but not the desktop, weird.

Anyway, this nonsense regarding food plots vs baiting are completely crazy. I put thousands of dollars into habitat mgmt, food plots, clover on trails, thicken up bedding areas, create additional water sources, on and on.

Now someone please tell my why hunting over my plots is unethical? Please, give it a go. I plant in June, food never leaves. Furthermore I plant a 20 acre field in alfalfa, deer use it daily but it's no guarantee that I shoot a deer on it. Put pressure on animals and you'll get nocturnal movement. Bait is a short term solution that impacts deer movement, huge difference. Ag field/food plots don't disappear - they are there for months.

I hear/see jealously, that's it. My larger bucks don't make a mistake very often and show up on a plot before last light, that's reality. Plus now, go on my land and my turnip/beet fields will have food on the plots till February. You naysayers, what are you doing to help your animals get through? I probably have 30+ deer per square mile, and it only happens because I've improved their habitat. Plus the farmer across the street leaves up 100 acres of corn.

This stuff is ridiculous.

[delcecchi]

Probably due to the evolving split into two web sites, Fishingminnesota and hotspotoutdoors. Some forums are on both sites, it seems.

[Bear55]

Probably due to the evolving split into two web sites, Fishingminnesota and hotspotoutdoors. Some forums are on both sites, it seems.

Yep duplicate fourms, not sure if I should post twice or just toss my hands in the air and give up.

[delcecchi]

Maybe just hang loose for a week or two and they will probably get it straightened out so the forums will be one place or another and hopefully switching from site to site will be painless.