Itasca state park

[winterwalleye]

Was wondering how hunters in the park did this year. Was very poor for me.I have hunted the park for many years and seems to be getting poorer and poorer and yet they have intensive harvest. They also did away with antler point restrictions this year and that didn't even make a difference.Very few deer seen.

[tritonman]

We have land that connects to the park and it snowed on thursday so friday I drove around the park and on one trail through the center and never saw a single track let alone a deer. Out of 47 guys in the different camps up there, only five guys had seen a deer. It's going to be tough hunting up there for a lot of years to come.

[summit090706]

I hunted the Park all week. I spent 63 hours in the stand and saw one deer. This was the worse season we had.

[schmoe147]

Very slow year for our group also. Everyone that a talked to seem to see very little deer within the park. Hopefully its just an off year and the population isnt really that low.

[boe757]

Last year the Itasca Park management plan was posted on this forum, it has been in place for some time and is designed to reduce the number of deer in the Park, intensive harvest being one of the tools, sounds like it is working as planned. Hopefully zero is not the goal, I am sure the pines appreciate it. Nice scenery up there

[Todd Caswell]

Also heard they were plannning on introducing a small " Starter Pack " of wolves within the park in the spring of 2012..

[boe757]

very few deer in the Park. Large pine trees are useless as deer habitat, look nice but nothing under them to eat, no shelter, especially with norway and white pines. The park does nothing to assist the deer population because they want them dead. The deer are in the farm areas, if they have a choice, more food, and fewer predators by the homesites. Diffenent story north of Bemidji with miles of wilderness. The gramps would always tell us how few deer there were in the ,30's40,s deer did not show in abundance until agriculture.

With the lack of deer the "starter pack" must be planning to eat popple trees, life could be tough and brief outside the park.

Its still a nice place to hunt, not the best if you like venison

[summit090706]

Not sure what you mean by "starter pack" There are two fairly large packs already located in the Park. We saw one wolf and see at least one every year. The rangers said that the pack are moving more to the North West.

[iland99]

I live literally right next to Itasca State Park. Since moving in back in August I've seen 5 or 6 deer. There just aren't that many deer directly in the park. Head 5 miles north of the park on Hwy 92 and it's an entirely different story!

As the other poster mentioned, there are plenty of wolves already in and around the park. I nearly hit one with the truck near the Itasca Junction gas station a few weeks ago, and hear wolves quite often at night.

[Bear55]

Hopefully zero is not the goal.

I really wish the DNR would open up about their population goals. It seem to me they have held pretty steady that our deer population is right around 1 to 1.2 million deer at the peak but I highly suspect that the population swings are much more severe than that. I have witnessed many intensive harvest areas get pummeled and switched back to lotto, yet there are alwasy a million deer in the state.

[Musky Buck]

Starter pack ? I would think if we have 4 packs in our area 70 miles straight south of the park that many have spent some time there not meaning the wolves in our area, depending on available food. I am sorry to hear it was that slow deer wise this year but that echo's many areas this year. It will be interesting to see what next year is ?

[Musky Buck]

Agreed Bear, if they would say let's say 800,000 deer in the state then they could say we sell more tags/permits/licenses than their are deer in the state. 2009 and I believe 2010 that would be true.

[Jessie_H]

My cabin is 11 miles from the North entrance to the park, past couple years we've seen very little deer. My grandparents have started to seen wolves around the area. I've given up going to my cabin for hunting.

[flyfisher03]

From the Itasca State Park Management Plan

Quote:

White-tailed deer

White-tailed deer are common throughout most of Minnesota, including the area surrounding Itasca State Park. Population estimates based on 1998 harvest figures place deer population density in Itasca State Park at approximately 15 - 17 animals per square mile during the pre-fawn time of the year. In contrast, the estimated pre-European settlement deer population density for similar forested areas in northern Wisconsin was approximately 4 - 10 animals per square mile (Tester and Kenyon, 1994). The park’s deer population experienced dramatic increases during the 1930s and 1940s as improved transportation systems brought increased human activity to the area. Increased human activity that created additional open spaces also increased deer habitat in the area surrounding the park. In addition, the park was designated as a deer protection zone where no hunting was allowed from the early 1900s until the 1940s. Annual deer hunts have been held within the park since the 1940s to reduce the population density. These hunts have aided in deer management, but the park’s white-tailed deer population remains higher than the desired density for optimal pine regeneration to occur in Itasca’s northern coniferous forest (University of Minnesota and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 1994).

More can be found at http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/parks_trails/mgmtplans/itasca_plan.pdf

[nonteepical]

This is 2011 why are they using deer densities from 1998. No wonder our deer management is screwed up.

[harvey lee]

I am by no means a deer biologist.

From what I am reading, it seems the DNR wants a deer herd that would be smaller than what the hunters would like to see. I have no idea what thier management goals are for the park.

Adding more wolves will only decrease those numbers now in place. Problem with more wolves in the park is, if there is not enough foor within the park, of course those packs will move to the areas that have deer. Enough with too many wolves. Not saying we should not have some but enough is enough. It's to bad each state cannot decide how to manage the wolf population and leave the Fed's out of it.

Yes, it would be nice if the DNR would give very accurate details about thier goals for areas of the state. But with that said, we all know that if they did that, we would all have a plan of our own as we all have different ideas of what those numbers should be and how to implement that program.

Stinks if one has a cabin there and has hunted for years. Maybe, one could find a better location not that far from ones old hunting grounds with the park to hunt a better sized herd.

[laker1]

Check your Area Wildlife manager for the zone you hunt he can give you goal data. He can tell you their deer density goal and where they think they are at. The park I think the goal is to grow more trees and less deer. Goals in many areas are now usually Socialogic carrying capacity goals vs biological carrying capacity(amount of deer/square mile that will have no long term damage to the area). What I mean by social carrying capacity is in many areas maybe farmers,foresters,car kill deer problems, and the hunters sit down and determine something satisfactory to all or a compromise. This was done a few years back, I think it is time to revisit each zone and determine if changes should take place or not? It is also time to tweek their method and models in determining deer populations.