tfran123

Rockman, I can tell you as a land owner in Northern MN that deer numbers are way down. Too many years on intensive harvest (5 deer limit) coupled with two hard winters have numbers waaaayyyy down. Now if you think all we have is a bunch of complainers then go enjoy your golden years in FL and let us know how that goes for you. I'd call you uninformed, period.

No disrespect intended but the great equalizer is advancement in bullets. Clearly 30 years ago times/technology were a lot different, end of story. A "9" with modern bullets is more than an adequate platform. I agree with everything you've said, many good points in your post.

I will say deer are a lot tougher than you think and I don't think the cold has a major impact (aside from needing more food). Regardless, I'm in East Central Mn, been running cams and deer appear very healthy, for what it's worth we noticed huge fat content on those deer harvested this fall. Does nature know what's in store? I.e. increased fat content knowing winter would be tough, not sure. Anyway, next 4 weeks are critical, no snow with some regular seasonal temps would really help . . . not to mention a big warm up!!

corn is about the worse thing you can give them, they need a mixture of things - granted in ag country it's a bit different. But up north you can feed deer corn and it's a good way to kill deer. Otherwise I somewhat agree, feeding responses should be very infrequent, and if not done correctly it will have a negative outcome.

Classic response. Have you ever been involved in such an exercise? Probably not I'm assuming, just sounds like a waste to you without knowing how effective winter feeding can be. In '95-'96 we had about 55-60 deer in our local yard, quite stressed and we did a late March feeding with pellets, probably saved half of the deer. Wouldn't recommend these "feedings" very often, they are called emergency for a reason and if you can get the feed close the yard and follow up keeping them fed for a period of time you will really mitigate starvation. I've seen it, it works, and have little doubt we have areas in the state that could use some help.

I do see what Todd is saying - in my view the harvest photos are fine (heck, I'd love to shoot one!!) but the anti wolf stuff like shovels, etc. are a bit much for the mainstream. I'm guessing that's the point he's making and I can see that side. But back on topic, if you have any doubt what wolves can do in a winter like this (deep snow, cold and stressed deer), go visit a deer yard in northern MN next month. It'll change your view on these pretty creatures (wolves that is). My hunch is you will see excess killing just like we saw in 95-96 winters, easy pickings for the wolves actually has them taking more than they need. I'm quite frankly sick of them, my neighbors have lost many, many calves this spring/summer (dozens) and they are absolutely relentless on the deer in our area - it's quite alarming. Completely out of balance and need more management, in spite of what the greenies say, we have a very strong population. At one point the goal for the state was 1,500, I'd like to get to that number again.

Yes - waaayyy too many wolves in this state. They are out there making a huge dent now, no doubt.

Again, tough for you. Sorry.

Start at the beginning and report back, this IS about deer densities. Make it as difficult as you'd like, apparently it's hard for you.

Classic post, can you look at anything objectively? Appears not, focus on big ag and big insurance companies first and then do a little research. Contrary to your very narrow view, the APR guys are actually fighting for some of the things you would appreciate. Hard to comprehend, yep, I know but it's true. Just wow . . .

Jameson - you should know by now that PurpleFloyd takes the "other" position just to be that guy, I've seen it 100's of times, this thread is no different. It's pretty simple deer numbers are down, can /should we bring them up - the big insurance companies would like to maximize harvest (deer hits are expensive!). It's not about bucks either but Purple Floyd can't/won't recognize that many of these organizations are trying to make our hunting better, sure some of them want better bucks and that my friend is what gets him all stirred up. Way too many permit areas in the mid-2000's allowing a 5 deer harvest, if you want to stack up does then guess what the population suffers, less does and future bucks. It's not hard to figure out, but for him it's a real challenge.

I also hunt not far from this area in Pine County, it's been pretty rough thus far this winter. About 20 inches of snow on the ground for the past month and it's been cold. We need a good thaw to drop the snowpack down a bit to make it easier for the deer to get around. They are in fine shape now but there is a lot of winter left . . .

Wow, just wow. You actually want to compare a guided hunt where it was done under fair chase versus a high fenced (tame animal) hunt? Tell me you aren't being serious . . .

agree, something was up with the census data showing a decent decline in numbers. Don't buy it at all. And "yes" the did fill the quotas very quickly in the last few weeks, again doesn't support a reduced population at all.

crazy good story, wow!!! Talk about getting it done. Those are 3 great animals!!! Completely unrelated, and not meant to detract from this topic - where did all the anti-APR guys go. Strangely absent on topics like this, but in short these are kind of hunts once could see more of if you hunt a herd with a balanced age structure, something the other side fails to recognize.