Seasons over-are you satisfied with your deer zone

[laker1]

Management type. Lottery,choice,management,intensive harvest etc.. Without knowing winter circumstances,would you want your zone to be the same or would change your zone management type? Please mention the zone you talking about. Have we become to spoiled in being able to shoot multible deer? With close to 500,000 hunters can quality persist? We have had very good hunting compared to some decades.

[JIvers]

In 347, which was a management area this year (two deer per person, with any hunter able to buy one antlerless permit) and a lottery area last year (one deer per person, lottery for an antlerless permit), I thought this year's status as a management area was about right.

We do not have the deer numbers that you find in the areas just to the east of us in Winona, Houston, and eastern Fillmore Counties. I see no need to regularly permit the harvest of five or six deer per person in 347, although I don't know anyone who took full advantage of this option in the years when 347 was an intensive harvest area. That is, I don't know of anyone in 347 who actually took five deer when that was a legal option.

At the same time, there are plenty of deer in 347, and I thought allowing only one deer per hunter in 2010 was too restrictive. I know I saw plenty of fawns this fall. Assuming deer numbers stay about where they are now, I would be happy if 347 were to stay a management area.

[1johntimm]

Not at all satisfied with my season as far as deer numbers. I'm in zone 1-area 157, and I did not see a doe in 14 mornings and afternoons hunting. I saw a total of 5 deer all season from the stands I hunted. The DNR had this area as an intensive harvest/5 deer per hunter? I cannot believe they did this and hope there are deer left for next year?

[Leadhead]

Zone 111. This was the worst year we have ever had and some members of our party have hunted there for 40 years. We only saw a couple deer all season and very little sign. I realize the population had to be reduced as it is next to the TB zone (101), but this is crazy. We were managed. I would like to see it bucks only next year. The DNR has essentially eradicated the deer in this area. It's going to take years for the herd to recover.

[zepman]

Area 348...second season gun hunter. Hope it stays as a "managed" area instead of intensive harvest. Deer #'s down as far as we can see and the sound of shotguns firing gets quieter every year...almost non-existant this past weekend.

I believe the deer are still there...more and more land is being bought up and held idle during certain seasons. 3B is certainly one of them. On properties we used to have permission to hunt we now have absolutely no access or permission to enter the land...even to transport deer out of the valley...it makes the land almost unhuntable anymore.

The APR's MAY be good for the deer herd but what we've seen is that it's only increasing the demand and price of the private land in this part of the state. It really makes one wonder what's behind these regulations...money or management??

[juniordo1]

Zone 179 - managed. I've hunted this zone for 31 years and the last two have been tough and we haven't seen many deer. I could see this being lottery for a couple of years but managed seems to be OK for others in the zone. I also have been hunting 178 - intensive for the last few years. I know there are a lot of deer around because I saw them bowhunting and on the fields at night so I'm satisfied with it being intensive. I wish they would walk by me in the woods! I only saw 6 deer this year between the two zones and took 1 fork myself.

[paceman]

241- managed. Saw deer every day. It went from intensive to lottery and then back to managed which I say is about right. As for numbers I think it has stabilized as I have seen about the same the last 3 years. I am satisfied.

[Jameson]

While I hunted a few different areas again this year I spent the most number of days in 159 on public land. The area was Managed this year. I spotted 3 deer in 4 days of hunting second week of zone 1. Not terrible in my book, but the forest looks to be in great shape, and not much for deer sign. I would like the area to be Hunters Choice next year, but I'm sure the private land owners in the area have a different opinion as they surely are dealing with more deer than the public land.

[cavalierowner]

We hunt in Area 122 and the place we stay at is in 127. Based on what we and others we talked to near us in 122, I can't figure out how we were a managed area. Although we did manage 2 deer for the 4 of us, it was nowhere near what we have seen other years. The place we stay at said they registered half the number of deer they usually do; although that could be due to the online/call-in registration. It will be interesting to see the DNR's numbers.

[MUSKY18]

259-managed. Although we did fairly well and went 5 for 9, the number of deer that were seen was way down. The few deer that were seen, were shot, and not many seen beyond that. Last year this was a lottery zone and the hunting was very tough. I am sure that the high winds and weather played a key part into deer movement the opening weekend, as the number of shots heard were very minimal at best. Will be curious to see what they list this zone next year, if it will stay as managed or not. I am going to assume that it will stay managed, and I am happy with that.

[creepworm]

Zone 240. I think managed is perfect for this zone. It has been managed for 3 years now and it seems as though the numbers have remained steady. Talking to the area farmers it should be an intensive area though.

[96trigger]

Sitings were way down in 342. I really think we should be a managed area and not Intensive harvest. Unfortunately, we are close to the CWD zone, so I don't know if that will happen or not. I think the deer were already pretty condensed in groups down here. You either saw lots of deer or very few. Deer were really concentrated on water sources, which might be another reason people didn't see as many. I really struggled to see does this year. I can count the number of does I saw all fall on one hand, and I was out a lot between bow hunting and firearm season. I don't know what the target numbers are or when they determine them, but this was not a fall with lots of opportunity. We ended up going 4 for 5, but in an intensive harvest area, we probably should be 5 for 5 on opening day as we had been in the past and then selective after that. You had to hunt hard to see deer this year. Could also have been weather related. Will be interesting to see what the registration numbers are. Not disappointed with the season, I would just like to see us taken out of intensive harvest before its too late.

[mnviking28]

I hunt in 264 which is Hunter Choice. I have hunted there for 26 years. We have about as many deer on our property as we did a couple of years ago when it was intensive harvest. It is an extreme frustration with us to go out every morning, have everyone see several deer and know that if we put any meat in the freezer that we are done. Several of us bow hunt and muzzle loader hunt as well. We all enjoy the meat and several of us have families that could or would use 3-4 deer a year. However, with a one deer zone, that isn't an option. I have a cousin that lives in the Twin Cities and he actually went to the DNR office and tried to get some clarification. They informed him that in our zone that we only have "1 to 7 deer per square mile"...he asked what that was based on and was informed that they flew aerial surveys in June. June? Because there aren't these things called leaves on the trees that prevent you from seeing the deer? During MEA weekend we were out and averaged seeing 40-60 deer per morning/evening and that is just the ones that were out in the fields feeding. Sorry for the rant, but extremely frustrated with the "variable" seasons when the population in our area has not changed. Seems more like we are saving more deer to get hit by cars, which is a pretty common theme in our area.

[Musky Buck]

Area 241 here mainly, hard not to be satisfied, # 1 muzzy area in the state and ranks generally as top dog of deer taken per square mile. I better be satisfied.

[TRZ II]

We hunt 3 different parcels in 156 and deer were way down in all the parcels which are over 30 miles apart. We got 4 deer for 5 guys but we never seen a doe and passed on a few small bucks and fawns(2 guys in our area never seen a deer and hunted all 3 weekends). For 156 to be intensive is an absolute joke. If I hunted hard all day the entire season I might have been able to shoot 5 deer. It should be hunters choice or lottery.

[lungdeflator]

184 was hunters choice, after lottery last year, and I think it couldve been managed. We saw plenty of does and fawns, but maybe that was because of the food source we had. I just hunted up by Brimson, MN for the 3rd weekend and didnt see a deer. of 7 people who hunted over the 3 weekend season there we saw 1 deer total. Im not positive the area # but I think it was intensive. They feed the deer throughout the fall up to 2 weeks before rifle opens and in 2 months of feeding had 7 different deer on camera. Pretty sad.

[Gofishleech]

259-managed. Although we did fairly well and went 5 for 9, the number of deer that were seen was way down. The few deer that were seen, were shot, and not many seen beyond that. Last year this was a lottery zone and the hunting was very tough. I am sure that the high winds and weather played a key part into deer movement the opening weekend, as the number of shots heard were very minimal at best. Will be curious to see what they list this zone next year, if it will stay as managed or not. I am going to assume that it will stay managed, and I am happy with that.

Were you hunting the Paulbunyan?

[TruthWalleyes]

I hunt 347/348, both managed zones. I think the east half of 347 needs to combine with 348. It's the west side of 347 that caused the zone to be lottery last year. From Hwy 52(divider of 347 & 348) as you go further west, the land becomes more farmland instead of woods. Less deer on the west side of 347 compared to the east side.

Keep 348 managed. Combine east side of 347 into 348. Take west side of 347 and make Hunters choice.

Get Rid of APR.

[uptracker]

118 (Hunters Choice) this year...SLOOOOWWWW!

I honestly don't understand why it was an HC unit this year. Especially with only 6 DPSM. Hunters had no problem shooting does either.

The area was also lacking buck sign. I saw a fair amount of scrapes, but rubs were almost non-existant.

[SandPoint]

I hunt 178 and it has bounced around from managed to intesive for a while now. I am seeing things a little differnt than you juniordo1, I hunt big woods public land off the beaten path. If you are near any of the few hay fields those are always loaded with deer. I have not seen nearly enough sign or deer for 178 to be intensive, managed maybe. My thinking for it being intensive is Hwy 53 and Hwy 16. Whats funny is it seems when its intensive my group doesnt shoot as many deer as when its managed

[CNCMike]

Area 171 - Hunter's Choice

Quite satisfied with the numbers. Average day there were 10-12 deer seen total between the 3 of us who hunted the property. Only 4 buck were seen though, all forks... The remainder were Doe and fawns. So quality was not too great

Opening day I saw 22 (20 doe/fawn + 2 buck)

I think, oddly enough, that 171 could go to a doe only area for a while, perhaps 2 per person... However, the majority of others I have spoken to that hunted the same area did not fair well and saw very few, if any, deer at all... So maybe the HC option is sufficient for now...

[hoytshooter]

184 hunters choice south of bemidji. our party was very pleased with this deer season. we only hunted the first two weekend because we where tagged out 4 of 4. i think HC is the way it should stay for at least one more year because the numbers arent strong enough to support managed. it would be nice to see some sort of lottery of an extra tag if and when the dnr thinks the zone can support it.

[bigbucks]

I hunt 213 primarily, but 214 quite a bit, both are managed. 213 went from several years of intensive to one year or lottery & has been managed 2-3 years now. 214 went from intensive to managed 2-3 years ago. I don't think the lottery in 213 was ever warranted, but it did bring the population back up higher in a hurry. I think in both cases managed is the correct designation. It was a tough season for us personally, but the sign & sightings on the cameras tell us there's plenty of deer. Many of the places we hunt are very affected by strong wind.

[juniordo1]

SandPoint,

I hunt private land with private on 3 sides and public on 1. I hunt the southwestern side of 178. The problem with the land I hunt is that they pass through to the neighbors on the other side for the fields and the water. There are several lakes nearby and the deer hide out in the yards of the seasonal folks and we can't chase them out. They come to my neighbors' fields at night and it is nothing to see 30+ deer (mostly does and fawns) at dark. My nephew saw 6 different bucks from his stand in the woods within 20 minutes of each other one morning after it snowed this season. To your point, I too haven't seen as much sign in the woods but the deer are around in numbers. Regardless of managed or intensive we consistently average one deer per person.

[gurkster]

I am unhappy with 225 and 227 being Intensive harvest, it is to much. The deer population is down, I would like to see them as Managed or even Hunters Choice.