deer hunting

[Musky Buck]

I hear that bc, in my area probably none have shed even as I type this, but there are pockets in the state where by the end of December enough have shed to make that hunt counterproductive and often times it seems in fairly heavy deer density areas. DNR this and DNR that, but $27.00 to hunt bucks in our state for residents seems ridiculous to me, sure I'm for it but as a kid I always thought why does it cost more to hunt ducks than deer ? A case of beer or a deer license. All I know is since 1983 I've been allowed to rifle hunt each season for a buck, if the people in my area are scalding every buck or whatever that's not the DNR's fault but that's what many of us are tired of. It's not as easy as saying I'll hunt someplace else then, I'll keep paying my quarter mill on this land but I gotta go hunt someplace else. Here's to optimism for 2010 !

[Bear55]

The speed in which the deer herd bounced back after the 96 and 97 winters, we should error on the side of harvesting more deer rather than less deer.

I disagree with this statement. With our cold winters and healthy wolf population the deer herd up north will alwasy be kept in check. We also have a lot of hunters who are happy to see a couple of deer a year let alone shoot anything. If anything error on the side of more deer up north.

[Musky Buck]

I wonder bear if he was saying why not dust them off if winter and wolves will get em anyway ? I agree with ya bear, don't think that would be the answer.

[Bowfin]

I think it all comes down to the type of habitat your hunting area has. I did a lot of hunting in Crow Wing County in the 80's and 90's. Potlatch still had its mill in Brainerd and they were harvesting lots of timber keeping the habitat young - lots of deer. Crow Wing is changing and getting developed rapidly - forest management is more sensative than in the past and possibly the habitat is getting older and not as great - less deer? I don't know as I haven't hunted there as much in the last 10 years.

I have also hunted in the Chippewa National forest in northern Itasca every year since 84. Throughout the 80's and early 90's there was a lot of logging taking place on the forest keeping the habitat younger and we had lots of deer and wolves. The harsh winters of 96 and 97 killed off most of the deer. Our camp was skunked in 1996 for the first time since it started in the 30's. With mild winters the herd bounced back so by 1999 we were seeing just as many deer as we were in the early 90's. Over the last decade or so the Forest Service has reduced its timber harvesting. The National Forests are increasingly becoming hands off for active forest management. The woods are getting older and the deer population has been decreasing over the last few years as a result.

Over the last 20 years there has been a lot of forest management in south St. Louis County. I have watched the deer herd north of Duluth explode over the last 15 years in spite of a wolf population higher than any area I have hunted in the State. It comes down to habitat. The harsh winters of the mid 90's knocked down the deer herd (with the help of wolves) but the herd came roaring back with the onset of more mild winters and the young habitat. In talking to the wildlife folks, the wolf population has reached its carrying capacity in the area (I think we should be able to hunt wolves too but that is another topic). So in short, the wolves are getting all they need and the herd here is still high - only difference over the other 2 places I mentioned is that a lot of forest management is still occurring here keeping deer habitat excellent. I think we could error on the side of shooting more deer north of Duluth because the great young habitat will allow them to bounce back if too many get killed. There's too many out there now. The wolves and recent winters are not keeping the deer herd in check in this area of northern MN.

[BobT]

Habitat...forest management - You've said a mouthful.

[Bear55]

Bowfin, we seem to be talking about different areas. I would guess you are talking to management/intensive harvest areas because you keep referring to high deer populations which isn't the case in most of the northern bigwoods. So when I mentioned "error on the side of more deer up north" I was specifically talking about areas with low deer numbers to start with. I guess I should have made myself more clear.

As far as forest management I guess I haven't seen these big shifts in logging that you are talking about, at least not on a wide scale. It would be interesting if anyone had any historical data on the logging industry to see if the northern MN deer harvest was on a similar pattern. It does make perfect sense for smaller areas where their might be a high concentration of logging. In the past 15 years the deer population has been booming state wide so its hard say an increase in forest management is the only reason for a population change but I'm sure it helps.

[BobT]

There's never any one factor that makes the impact...except maybe some kind of disaster or something.

[schmoe147]

Everyone should get a buck and doe tag, no party hunting. No Road hunting, No baiting. Oh yea and the people that need to shoot 5 to put meat on the table go buy a quarter or half beef it would be way cheaper.

[BobT]

I think you totally misunderstand the 5 deer phenomena. The DNR issues permits to take those five deer for a reason. Could be an area that has too high a density of deer and they feel the herd needs to be thinned. Taking a few extra does is an extremely effective way to accomplish this.

I don't take advantage of it myself. Not because I don't want to take more than one deer but because I have no use for more venison than one deer. My wife doesn't like venison so if I were to put more than one in the freezer it would get too old before we'd use it all and that in my book is wanton waste.

My brother and my brother-in-law have different scenarios. Their families really enjoy venison and so they can easily handle the extra meat. So they enjoy venison as much if not more than beef or pork. Meat is meat and they choose venison as easily as you or I would choose a good pork butt roast. The only difference is how it is obtained.

[Bear55]

I think where people are getting frustrated with the extra tags is after several years the population takes a too much of a hit. Now I know that is the DNR's goal but I think they can take it too far in certain areas.

Let say we have a lot of deer in a certain area and we get some extra tags, people shoot some extra deer and we bring the population down a little and things are good. This practice continues on for another 2-3 years and things are still good because there are enough deer around and the hunters are happy to keep on shooting. Now we are at at point when we have lowered the population 3-4 years in a row and just maybe the extra tags could use a rest. However the DNR keeps on handing out tags and the hunters keep on shooting because the DNR says its ok. Each year more and more does are shot, now if you are not paying close attention to that area and maybe just looking at the harvest numbers things look good. The harvest numbers have been steady but what you aren't seeing is that the overall population is now far less than when you first starting handing out the extra tags. Even with this lower population hunters with high powered rifles have no problem taking out a good number of does and they still have extra tags in their pocket so why not right? Finally after enough time and enough extra tags the population quickly takes a tumble, the harvest numbers reflect that tumble and the DNR switches you from an intensive harvest or management are to a lotto area. Now we just hope for a mild winter so the population can try and make a comeback.

Now I don't doubt certain areas of the state can and will be intensive harvest for managed areas for the next 50 years without any problems but in other areas the deer can't handle that, the deep snow and wolves will make sure of that.

[JimmyJames]

Well said Bear,at least that's what this armchair biologist is thinkin.

[96trigger]

I think ideally, the DNR would like to see all the areas as managed. Two deer a person would probably be about the optimum bag limit. If you look at the data, very few people tag 3 or more deer. I can't remember the exact numbers, but they were given out awhile ago.

The DNR is trying to manage the areas as best they can. It would definitely suck going from Intensive Harvest to Lottery and it probably never should have happened, I'm sure that was not the intention of the DNR. But there is a human element to all of this and there is also no way to control mother nature. Put the two together and it gets harder to do the perfect job of managing.

[BobT]

I think where people are getting frustrated with the extra tags is after several years the population takes a too much of a hit. Now I know that is the DNR's goal but I think they can take it too far in certain areas.

Let say we have a lot of deer in a certain area and we get some extra tags, people shoot some extra deer and we bring the population down a little and things are good. This practice continues on for another 2-3 years and things are still good because there are enough deer around and the hunters are happy to keep on shooting. Now we are at at point when we have lowered the population 3-4 years in a row and just maybe the extra tags could use a rest. However the DNR keeps on handing out tags and the hunters keep on shooting because the DNR says its ok. Each year more and more does are shot, now if you are not paying close attention to that area and maybe just looking at the harvest numbers things look good. The harvest numbers have been steady but what you aren't seeing is that the overall population is now far less than when you first starting handing out the extra tags. Even with this lower population hunters with high powered rifles have no problem taking out a good number of does and they still have extra tags in their pocket so why not right? Finally after enough time and enough extra tags the population quickly takes a tumble, the harvest numbers reflect that tumble and the DNR switches you from an intensive harvest or management are to a lotto area. Now we just hope for a mild winter so the population can try and make a comeback.

Now I don't doubt certain areas of the state can and will be intensive harvest for managed areas for the next 50 years without any problems but in other areas the deer can't handle that, the deep snow and wolves will make sure of that.

I understand what you're saying and for the most part agree. What we have to remember is that the DNR is basing their choices on gathered data and past trends. They can predict to some degree but in the end there is no way for them to really predict how successful hunters will be and how many hunters will take advantage of the extra tags. As a result, they are forced to deal with what actually did happen and react accordingly.

The results could be that more hunters took advantage and were successful than predicted. The opposite could also happen, which might explain how some areas continue with the program longer than we might expect. It's a game of what ifs and what dids.

[Bear55]

I think ideally, the DNR would like to see all the areas as managed. Two deer a person would probably be about the optimum bag limit. If you look at the data, very few people tag 3 or more deer. I can't remember the exact numbers, but they were given out awhile ago.

The DNR is trying to manage the areas as best they can. It would definitely suck going from Intensive Harvest to Lottery and it probably never should have happened, I'm sure that was not the intention of the DNR. But there is a human element to all of this and there is also no way to control mother nature. Put the two together and it gets harder to do the perfect job of managing.

No doubt its not an easy job, I also have the benefit of looking back on the situation. I will be the first to admit I didn't know the deer population would take a nose dive in parts of Northern Minnesota. I'm really not trying to bash the DNR, just pointing out that maybe they are learning on the job and are not above criticism. Hopefully we are all learning something from the past 10-15 years. I totally agree about managed areas as ideal for both the deer population and hunter opportunities. I just hope the DNR agrees with us.