DNR Releases Early Deer Harvest Figures.

[sticknstring]

I think the numbers are accurate. It's the terminology that's used in the media that's the real secret. "5th highest harvest in history" type stuff is what's reported even though after this season, the population will be the lowest it's been in nearly 10 years. This year it'll be "population harvest goals on track with forecasts." Times are still good when you look back to 1996-1999. We're only one bad winter from approaching those numbers or worse. But it sure makes it frustrating as a hunter when you compare back to the banner years and realize how much fun it was to be on stand and see a few deer more often than not. It makes recruiting new hunters and bringing kids into the hunting circle all that more enjoyable as well when game is a plenty. But like someone posted earlier, it all averages out. I just hope we've hit the bottom of the slope and can start progress on the ascent.

[BRULEDRIFTER]

it all averages out. I just hope we've hit the bottom of the slope and can start progress on the ascent.

I agree.... Like everything else, there is an high and low.

I would assume that next year the majority of the state will be a lotto area and as long as there is no real harsh winter, we'll be seeing an upswing in the deer population in a few years.

[Bear55]

Ya what is with all the secrecy, DNR tell use what your goals are. It just seems like the hunters want more deer around, like you said stick those were some fun years. I would like to think a Management area is a goal, who doesn't want to shoot a doe every year for meat and hold out for a nice buck, but I just have a feeling the DNR wants to keep the population much lower. The question is why? The winters/hunters are certainly capable of keeping the population in check. I wonder if the DNR sees the population out of control in other states, especially the south, and get scared by what is happening there. They don't have our winters and wolves to balance everything out.

[BRULEDRIFTER]

I ASSUME the DNR would like to have most of the state lotto areas with a few management areas available to those that want that opportunity. But it would be nice if it was balanced so that most areas were management areas, because it is very nice to fill a doe tag and wait out for a buck, or just simply to extend ones hunting season as they see fit.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out that the insurance companies and Big Ag have some pull with the higher-ups in St. Paul in keeping the numbers as far down as possible, though.

[sticknstring]

The WI DNR cites their population goals. I'd guess an annual deer harvest of 200,000 would be pretty close for MN.

MN Annual Deer Harvest

WI Annual Deer Harvest & Goals

[laker1]

the numbers are honest numbers-accurate-I think so. Reason why many areas of state deer population goals are 50+ percent less than the 1970-1980 era is these advisory groups were dominated by foresters and the forestry industry in the north woods area. There should be more balance. It now is skewed to a very low population number in many areas. Many areas had more deer when the state had bucks only season up north in the 1970-early 80's and the DNR thought there was too few deer than. Times have changed in the thought process.

[Bear55]

The WI DNR cites their population goals. I'd guess an annual deer harvest of 200,000 would be pretty close for MN.

MN Annual Deer Harvest

WI Annual Deer Harvest & Goals

That Wisconsin chart is interesting, I can't believe they would want to eliminate half of their current herd as their goal. Based on last years numbers they want to reduce their population from 1.5 million deer down to 700K. They might state that is their goal but I'm pretty sure WI has close to 600K hunters and I am betting every one of them and their families wouldn't be happy with the herd cut in half.

[Red Miller]

I am guessing that their goal is so high because of CWD. There are just too many deer there and more opportunities to spread the disease. They cant kill enough of them.

[DonBo]

That Wisconsin chart is interesting, I can't believe they would want to eliminate half of their current herd as their goal. Based on last years numbers they want to reduce their population from 1.5 million deer down to 700K. They might state that is their goal but I'm pretty sure WI has close to 600K hunters and I am betting every one of them and their families wouldn't be happy with the herd cut in half.

I believe the thought process is that the herd will double every year with a new crop of fawns. That means that if the herd is brought down to 700k deer now (over winter i think they call it) that by next spring, after the fawns are born, there there will again be near 1.5 mill.

[bogwalker]

I see that some of the skeptics are realizing how depleted our deer population is up here. There may be more crow than venison in the pot.

[Bear55]

Originally Posted By: Bear55

That Wisconsin chart is interesting, I can't believe they would want to eliminate half of their current herd as their goal. Based on last years numbers they want to reduce their population from 1.5 million deer down to 700K. They might state that is their goal but I'm pretty sure WI has close to 600K hunters and I am betting every one of them and their families wouldn't be happy with the herd cut in half.

I believe the thought process is that the herd will double every year with a new crop of fawns. That means that if the herd is brought down to 700k deer now (over winter i think they call it) that by next spring, after the fawns are born, there there will again be near 1.5 mill.

I noticed that DonBo, but they never get close to their goal. If they ever did I would be there would be an uproar.

So Bog who are all these skeptics claiming big deer numbers up north?

[bogwalker]

I do not know anyone who claimed big numbers.

[Bear55]

So who is eating crow then?

[bogwalker]

So who is eating crow then?

Big numbers? Better read my post again Bear55. I think you can figure it out.

[leech~~]

I think he said how Depleted it is.

What I like about the Wis, chart is how it just keeps raising and raising. Not like the big dips in the Minn, chart. They most be doing some wonderful management over there.

[bogwalker]

I do not recall Wisconsin ever having to close deer season like Minnesota did back around 1970. It has been many years since I hunted over there.

[Musky Buck]

We compare the 2 states but they aren't comparible, 1/3 of MN lies further north than Wisc. Wisconsin has way better habitat overall, we have vast expanses of land/sections with little to no deer cover and once winter hits that is barren land. We have lots of crop farmers that plant every square inch leaving little deer habitat. that's just the way it is. Our large lakes a bit, if there was no mille lacs there'd be another 100,000+ acres of deer land. Good luck and be safe.

[Gordie]

, if there was no mille lacs there'd be another 100,000+ acres of deer land. Good luck and be safe.

That is a great way to look at it muskybuck I never really gave that a thought. WOW just thing about if there was no big six