Historic (1918 - 2008) deer information

[lcornice]

I'll likely get this posted on the DNR site next week but I figured I'd post it here too. I get a lot of question (okay, comments too) about best season, worst season, etc. So, I compiled the available information and put it in both tabular and graphical format. As most know, Minnesota has mandatory deer registration so the harvest estimate is based on a tally of stubs (either paper or electronic). We do not estimate deer harvest as is done in some other states. Thus, harvest is a minimum estimate as a small percentage of people don't register their deer. Personally, I think it's low because people register without physically bringing the deer to the station.

It's some pretty interesting information. Once it's posted on the DNR site I'll change the links.

1918 - 2008 Deer Harvest Figures

1918 - 2008 Deer Harvest Tables

To answer the inevitable question, no I won't speculate or get into discussions regarding "worst season ever" or whether or not I should be fired . Those exchanges are best shared on the phone and I'm very easy to find. I just wanted to share the data because this is a great forum to disseminate this type of information.

Enjoy

[DonBo]

Interesting stuff Lou. Thanks for takeing time from your busy schedule to keep us informed. I think the question will be, are we assuming the harvest trends parallel the overall deer numbers? Or are they somewhat inflated because of the xtra tags/opportunities available?

[96trigger]

Cool data. love to see it brokent down by area. Love to see the trendlines for zones also. Great info. Eventually, it would be nice to know what the target population for an area is in the state. I say area as some areas will probably have a higher carrying capacity than others. Might help show some of the diversity in the state.

[Ely Lake Expert]

Thanks for posting, interesting

[picksbigwagon]

Thanks Lou, as I had stated, sarcastically, in another post, I am sure your last month has been really slow at work. Thanks for posting these numbers, interesting how it ebbs and flows, but I am sure each of those down years was the DNR's fault for the low deer harvest numbers. Well, for the two closed years I am sure the DNR had something to do with it.

[Dave S]

Thanks for that information Lou. I'm sure there will be some who will dispell the information and say it's bogus. Keep in mind many of those nay-sayers weren't around at the time when things were really bad. Seeing that upward trend over the years is a great indicator of the successful management of the state's deer population. To that, I say great job. Keep up the good work.

[Gordie]

thats some cool stuff Lou keep up the great work.

[96trigger]

Somebody mentioned on a previous post that our lines don't look like Wisconsins because we have too many dips. Take a pencil and draw a trendline (draw a line through the majority of the dots), and you will see that we have a steadily increasing deer population. Until the last couple of years where I think maybe the state is starting to reach its max in some areas.

[archerystud]

Thanks Lou!!!

[lcornice]

Cool data. love to see it brokent down by area. Love to see the trendlines for zones also. Great info. Eventually, it would be nice to know what the target population for an area is in the state. I say area as some areas will probably have a higher carrying capacity than others. Might help show some of the diversity in the state.

Those are great questions. I wish I could do it by area but they've changed so much over the years it would very difficult to make comparisons. Same goes for zones. You'd end up seeing big swings in zone (or area) harvests and conclude "it's way up/down" when in actuality the boundaries moved. As for publishing target populations in each area, you got me there. I made a map a couple years ago for the Pioneer Press (they did a big story on deer goals) showing goal densities for each permit area but I haven't taken the time to put numbers to the percentages and I'm hoping to do that this winter. Here's the map I put together for the Pioneer Press a couple of years ago. I need to do a "where are we now" map and I'll probably do it this spring after the season closes and we get through winter.

Deer Goal Setting Map

To answer Don's question, when controlling for hunter numbers harvest tracks populations pretty well. Buck harvest is a better indicator because everyone's tag is valid for a buck. Antlerless harvest varies depending on management style. For example, from 2003 on there was a great expansion in antlerless harvest and we were taking does disproportionately, which has the effect of lowering overall densities. Scaling back antlerless harvest (as was done this year) accounts for the majority of the harvest declines, as it should. If you look at buck harvest, it's functionally the same as last year (with the same number of hunters).

As for naysayers, they don't bother me at all. I always joke that when my position is vacated, anyone who meets the qualifications is free to apply . All I ever ask from people is they attempt to understand the complexities inherent in managing white-tailed deer in this state. With nearly 500,000 deer hunters (all of which having at least 1 opinion), it's not so simple as doing it this way "because it's right". There's a lot of information, both biologically and socially that's taken into account prior to making decisions. I enjoy a spirited debate about the fundamentals of strategy and direction because 2 people looking at the same data can easily draw separate conclusions. That's healthy. When I get stuff like "DNR is making up the numbers" or "the insurance industry is paying DNR for bonus permits", I take it for what it's worth because I know better. Anyone is free to come to my office (okay, cubicle) any time and look at the data. Some of it's really old and I can't vouch for information collected in 1923 but it's available.

[Dave S]

I forgot about the line of "The insurance companies are paying the DNR for extra permits"

[Red Miller]

Some people have very active imaginations..

Thanks for all info Lou. Thats good stuff! btw: I would say that a vast majority of people here think that you are doing a great job! Keep it up! I will have a chat with the boss about upgrading that "cubicle" situation.

[picksbigwagon]

Thanks for posting Lou, the last few weeks, I have been telling the kids at school when we head outside during those two glorious weeks of weather, I would rather have been inside at a cubicle....NOT..........

[james_walleye]

I've never heard the line about insurance companies paying for extra permits, but i've heard many times that insurance companies have a voice out their whispering in someones ear.

Lou i have a co-worker and friend who i won't name on here that is with blufflands who has worked with you i know especially last year on the senate floor i believe reguarding the issue of a group who wanted to get the 2nd weekend back on to the 3A season. Anyway, he was telling me about a meeting that was had about antler point restrictions and how antler point restrictions were introduced in MO. Basically, socially it wasnt exactly embraced by the hunters at the onset but after a couple years of seeing the results something like 90% of the hunters were in favor of the restrictions. I understand that an APR on the whole state wouldnt probably work, but i was wondering if you could comment on if the DNR has looked into APR restrictions in zone 3 and what the possible results to the deer herd might be expected. I would suspect that initially APR wouldnt have a big following but the results would parallel what happened in MO as well as hunter satisfaction.

[Stratosman]

Enlighten me what happened in MO when they put the APR in place?

[james_walleye]

Dont quote me on the numbers and maybe Lou can correct me if im wrong but i thought hunter approval was less than 50% before the APR and went to 90% after a couple years. Hunters were seeing more mature bucks is what happened. Im just curious if Lou can share any thoughts on if or how similiar results might be achieved in SE MN.

[Nathansdad]

Also APR's in the central Minnesota(Brainerd/Mille Lacs) area?

[harvey lee]

THanks for posting here on Fishing Minnesota.

Also, thanks for all you do for the deer herd in Minnesota. I'm sure its a very tough job to try and keep all the deer hunters happy as so many want something different in their season and the zone they hunt. Some want horns and big ones and other simply as doe to eat. Not so simple I'm sure when you have to balance the herd in every area of the state and try to keep all happy.

Overall, I believe both you and the DNR are doing a great job.

[96trigger]

You know, I guess I never thought about how much the zones have changed down here. They have been fairly consistent in having two seasons, but the two seasons, 3A and 3B, have varied pretty drastically, especially the last couple of years. I can see where the data could be quite skewed and not be very representatvie of what is actually taking place.

Is a managed area the preferred or target area?

[lcornice]

Is a managed area the preferred or target area?

We've talked internally a lot about that question. I think ideally, a mix of lottery and managed areas would be the ideal situation. In some places (SW), it'll always be lottery because deer habitat is limited and deer are vulnerable once the crops are down. In other areas (SE, central), managed is probably the best we'll do because of good habitat and deer productivity. I've said for years that intensive/early antlerless is not the way we intend to manage deer long-term. It's a population control method (along with earn-a-buck) that should be used to decrease populations.

[lcornice]

Enlighten me what happened in MO when they put the APR in place?

I just posted on the other thread.

[lakevet]

Lou,

Great info. When was the first deer season? Data only goes back to 1918. My family started hunting our area back in the 1880's. Thanks.

lakevet