Itasca State Park Deer Hunt

[griz29]

Anyone ever hunt Itasca State Park in the past. My inlaws farm sold last November and I have always wanted to try rifle zone and feel the need to get away. I am already guessing there are probably crowds but I have hunted the Sherburne Wildlife on and off for the past 10+ years so I am used to it. If anyone could just give me the aye or nay on if it is worth the effort and drive otherwise I was going to try one of the State Forest Areas within 3 or so hours from the Zimmerman area. Thanks Any Advice is appreciated!

[schmoe147]

I have hunted in and around the park my whole life. Its just like anywhere else, it has its years. The last 3 years have not been good in the park. Hunting the park is also alot of work, no use of motorized vehicles and if you want to get away from people you will be walking 3 or more miles from a road/trail. Good Luck in your decision.

[Powder]

One of the biggest problems is that the Park management does not want deer in the park and has apparently convinced the DNR this is a good idea. I know last year, and I believe again this year, they are offering four doe tags in addition to your main tag. If you look at the four zones that border it none of them offer the same amount of tags or anything close. Three are lottery and one is managed. Can someone please tell me what makes the Park so special to allow so many more tags? I understand you can't base everything off of surrounding zones but come on. There's got to be a reason and it's not an abundance of food or lack of pressure. They do not log at all and put out fires as quickly as possible. It's an old forest. I've hunted this area for 30+ years and the hunting pressure grows every year and the number of deer goes down.

I would LOVE for the DNR to show what they believe the actual numbers of deer in the park are. It's no where near what they want us to believe it is.

As I mentioned earlier, I've hunted there for a lot of years and grew up and still live close by. Last year was the first year I didn't hunt it. I know that area extremely well and none of our areas looked like there had been any deer there in a long time and everyone I know who hunts there says the same thing. It's unfortunate the Park management/DNR have decided to do this. It's ruined what once was a great place to hunt.

Sorry for the rant but I had to say it.

[griz29]

Thanks for the replies - It is kind of what I expected after looking at harvest data. It is odd that they put the park in intensive harvest - and looking at the maps it looks like a person would have to almost process the deer in the field and pack it back to camp - no way am I going to try to drag a deer 3+ miles there wouldn't be any hide left on the thing. I think I will look further into the State Forest - better access and possibly more game with probably just as much pressure from other hunters.

[Bear55]

Powder I think a lot of northern MN had their deer populations beaten down the last 5 or so year, far too many doe tags and wolves. At least all of my up north areas are lotto now so the population can recover but I agree with you, kind of mystery why the park would still be intensive harvest.

[Powder]

Yeah, I don't have an issue with low deer numbers in general as there are a lot of factors that can play into it. BUT, why the inconsistancies in regards to how other areas are managed?

In the mid to late 90's we had some really low herd numbers state wide. There were no doe permits anywhere yet the Park was intensive harvest. We had tons of new hunters who said they didn't know anything about the Park but figured it must be some sort of preserve since it was the only zone to shoot does. We didn't have any more deer than anyone else.

Something is going on with the way the Park is managed and it's very fishy. I don't believe for one second the Park/DNR is being honest about the deer numbers or their intentions. If their intention is to knock the herd down, why?

[Acemac]

I grew up hunting up north (fifty lakes area) and we never could understand why anyone would shoot a doe...

still to this day I would not get a doe tag just seems to easy.

the whole does taste better argument has never held much water for me either.

[ItsaCrappieLife]

Why shoot a buck? You could always take a high power camera out in the woods and take a great close range picture of it to show to your friends or put on the wall of your cabin. Then the next year you could take a picture when the buck's horns were even bigger. Unless you are grinding up the horns to make some chinese impotency formula why do you need to shoot a buck?

[B. Amish]

i think itasca is intensive because they don't have archery or muzzleoading inside the park. so, the rifle season is the only oppurtunity to keep the numbers in check.

[Bear55]

I grew up hunting up north (fifty lakes area) and we never could understand why anyone would shoot a doe...

still to this day I would not get a doe tag just seems to easy.

the whole does taste better argument has never held much water for me either.

I don't know isn't Fifty Lakes more up central? Shooting does is not wrong, that is backwards thinking and I really hope the low populations in the north don't have a backlash of shooting only bucks in the future.

What you need is sound management, not sell as many do tags for as long as you can kind of management. Ideally you have a balanced herd of bucks and doe, with a balanced age structure too. You should also have a balanced harvest every year. To only shoot bucks really isn't responsible management and can often lead to an overpopulation of deer and an out of balance sex ratio.

[Finlander]

This is Minnesota mentality: "I'm not a big time hunter if I don't shoot a buck"!

That's fine, just don't shoot 1-2 year old basket racks! To me, that makes you a wimp of a hunter shooting them at that age more than shooting a big easy doe. Give them bucks another year to let them really grow, then bag them, you'll be the envy of all the hunters you know!

Lets see, 1 1/2 year old buck weighs around 125lbs. average, 2-3 year old doe weighs 125-150 average. And that 2-3 year old doe will be harder to bag than that 1 1/2 year old buck for sure!

[Musky Buck]

Before you hammer Finlander and I'm Finish by the way, I'm not sure if it's 10 or 20 thousand times I've heard "got my buck". In 1983 old zone 4 was 3 days of bucks only or 2nd weekend 2 day hunt with a lotto for a doe. Back then, because of many reasons, we had lots of real dandy bucks around, some that I'm sure died of old age and we would every so often even see poorly racked bucks past there prime. Let's face it land ownership has changed, parcels have become smaller, and there are fewer places for a deer to refuge to reach a true maturity.

[Musky Buck]

Deer basically had to survive for 3 or 2 days to make it to next years rifle season again and yes I'm aware that most rifled deer are taken in the first 2 days, but the ones taken after that and I'm targeting old zone 4 (zone 2 and 1 have been the way they are for a long time), those extra 7 days or so now are taking deer that used to survive rifle season, now add up to 16 more days by 100,000 muzzy guys that even takes more adult deer out of the equation. Old Muzzy numbers were a drop in the bucket and rifle boys had way less days in the field. I thought once split season, but then my neighbors wives will have tags the first weekend and husbands the 2nd so that wouldn't do squat in my area. Anyway, just hope your number is up this season and the deer you are hoping for comes by! and................you connect !

[schmoe147]

The average doe weight is actually 115lbs, and average buck is 150lbs

[Powder]

i think itasca is intensive because they don't have archery or muzzleoading inside the park. so, the rifle season is the only oppurtunity to keep the numbers in check.

That logic could have been used in the past but not so much anymore. Starting this year they opened it up to muzzleloading as well. Still no drop in the number of tags. Besides, archery hunters only fill a small fraction of tags compared to rifle.

[CANOPY SAM]

Back to the original question:

I'm not positive, but I wonder if they're trying to eliminate or greatly reduce the deer herd in the park in an effort to take pressure off young trees? I know they had some serious insect infestation problems there many years back, and it had a pretty detrimental affect on several species of trees.

I think Itasca is managed heavily for it's trees, not for harvest, but perhaps for seedlings, or seeds? I would think that deer can wipe out a lot of young pines and so forth in a pretty short time.

Again, not sure on this. It's just a guess.

There must be a HSOforum on Itasca State Park, and a phone number one could call to ask these questions.

[Bear55]

The average doe weight is actually 115lbs, and average buck is 150lbs

Hey lets try and up those averages and let few young deer go this year.