Was the deer herd thinned too much?

[NoWiser]

The herd is pretty thin in some areas, but I don't personally think it is thinned "too much", and I certainly don't blame the DNR. The numbers were probably right about where they wanted them before the last two winters which, by themselves, weren't exceptionally bad, but when coupled with a large population of wolves which had grown due to large deer numbers the previous years, took it's toll.

Where I hunt, it has not been lottery since I started going there. Before season my dad, myself, and whoever else might hunt with us walk around the woods, look at sign, and look at trail cams. We then decide if there are enough does around where we can harvest some without hurting ourselves in the future. The last 3 years there has not been. Even though the law said we could shoot multiple does, common sense said we shouldn't, so we hunted for bucks only.

I feel absolutely no sympathy for the people who mowed down every single deer they saw for 4 or 5 straight years when they complain that there are no deer left for them anymore. Then they blame the DNR. Ha! Give me a break. For the responsible groups that hunt around them, I do have some sympathy for them, but again, don't blame the DNR, blame the neighbors.

For what it's worth, we haven't shot a doe in 3 years where we hunt, and nobody hunts close enough to us to really affect our hunting much. This year our party hunted a combined 23 days and saw 3 deer total. All this in an area where a doe hasn't been harvested in years. Can't blame the DNR for that.... It's winters and wolves where we are. The wolf population will take a hit this winter with the lack of snow, and I expect the deer herd to start making a comeback starting this spring.

[harvey lee]

I agree NoWiser with not shooting does when the population is down.

I have archery hunted for the past 25 years in ND and this fall I did not bother to go as I did not want to cut the herd any father than it was already.

I did buy a buck license for rifle and ML though.

Just could not see shooting any does. Our group took no does.

[Gordie]

Mother Nature is helping out the deer herd this winter so far and I bet its a bit harder for the preditors to feed easily when the snow cover is some to mostly none state wide. mther nature is putting on a good fight for the deer heard along with a few other thigs in her wild life Ransom.

[Tinkhamtown]

I am worried that too many deer are being taken in my 601 area. Coyotes are way up and taking a lot of fawns. 16 years ago I would be seeing 15 different deer regularly, 10 years ago 10 to 11, 5 years ago 5 to 6, this year only seeing 1. Too many people are shooting up to 5 of everything they see, with the DNR blessings. I have put a 1 buck only limit on myself but am thinking about stopping hunting because the deer herd cannot sustain all this pressure. I think the DNR is always behind the curve when it comes to optimistic game populations estimates and what reality is.

Tink

[96trigger]

I wish I knew why we go from 1 in Hunters choice, 2 in managed, and then FIVE in intensive harvest. Why not 3? Why take the risk in decimating a population when we don't know what the winter is going to be like. I hunt in zone 342 and the deer sightings were way down this year as well as the number of deer shot in our group. However, I am not going to complain, it was still a good year and we had our opportunities.

The DNR says that most people don't shoot 5 deer anyway, so why the need for a 5 tag area?

I don't know if the deer herd was thinned too much in 342. I know that the based on sign and trail cams, there are still lots of deer out there. However, I don't want to see it reduced anymore. It is about as low in my area as I would like to see it.

[harvey lee]

My guess on why they increase the doe tags every season depends on the herd size.

If they did not reduce the doe herd size on the years when it is high, the insurance companies and farmers would have costly results.

I would also guess disease could also factor into a large herd size.

I have seen the damage deer can do to a corn field when the numbers get high.

If we are to then say we will pay the farmers for all the damage to thier crops to keep the herd higher, who would kick in the extra funds for that cost?

Then if we kept the herd size above the carring capacity of the land, the bad winters would starve a ton anyways.

I do not know what the answer is nor will I ever.

It's different in a way with todays harvesting results from years ago.

Many years ago were happt with 1 deer and nowadays, so many want a sure thing or numerous deer.

I also like when I can harvest numerous deer but i do not believe that has to happen.

I believe many times we get spoiled with those high herd counts as we get use to seeing many deer on one outing. Then when it goes down to normal or a little less, we think the sky is falling.

The DNR can only keep so many of the hunters happy along with the insurance companies and the crop farmers.

Maybe we all have to do a better job of policing ourselves when the herd has reach the lower end to let it rebound a bit faster.

[96trigger]

Harvey,

I agree with you on almost everything. but I don't know if you understood what I was getting at. It seems like we go to extremes in our population, and maybe there are too many outside factors to even try and comprehend, but there are obviously issues when areas go from 5 deer to 1 deer. My question is why is there such a big jump between managed and intensive harvest for deer tags. Why is FIVE the number. It just seems like a very big jump, it more than doubles the number of deer taken. It just seems excessive to me. Why shouldn't 3 be the number for intensive harvest, especially if few people even take 3, and even less take 4 or 5. With cross tagging of management tags, why the need for 5 tags. It just seems like when the population is high, we feel like we have to reduce it right now and we can't adjust things gradually.

I also know of a couple of large groups of hunters that had a down year, but they have not been able to regulate themselves in the number of deer taken. Three years ago it was 20 deer, two years 15, last year under 10 and they complained. I don't get how they couldn't figure out why.

[Musky Buck]

45 deer trigger in 3 years is quite a few, same where I'm at the tags were available and whether most were even tagged who knows but now it's what happened well um they didn't evaporate, there were in our area way fewer does having fawns last may/june and if they did like many a farmer wonders about the heavy coyote population at present time, if does were stressed they could've dropped 1 or both of what would've been fawns. I've had people give me grief, you don't shoot does so you're not helping the herd, I don't feel 1 gun vs 478,000 of us, I think there's plenty of people in the areas I hunt taking plenty if not more does than they should, if that wasn't happening the areas I hunt wouldn't have this low of a population at present time. We'll be ok. It's an up and down thing.

[reinhard1]

i've hunted the same place since the 60's. it is public land but it seems like ours since we are the only ones that ever hunts there. its north of Duluth. all those years we have never filled out. however the last 3 years we have had what we consider good luck for the four of us. 3 out of 4 each year until this year we had 2 out of 4. we still concider that good in comparison to the decades we have hunted there.

we are right on the border and inside the intensive. i contribute to the better results on average to the logging that took place 4 years ago. they are logging all around us now as well here and there. so i think we will have similiar results this year. i always buy one extra tag. never had to use it. i didnt see any difference in the last few years. the first weekend was pretty windy and maby we could have done better. good luck.

[zepman]

96...I agree on the 5 deer intensive areas. That's just plain excessive. I was glad to see 348 go to a managed zone...way too many years of pounding EVERYTHING over there.

[muskiemanAD]

My area was a 5 deer intensive deer area for the last few years. We have a group that hunts 5 people on a 80 next to us. They average 15 deer a year the last 3 to 4 years. I have also noticed that their meat pole consists of their 4 to 5 antlered deer along with another 4 to 5 button bucks. This last year they shot one antlered buck and a handful of button along with their doe. They wonder where are the deer went....... The antler point restriction was a blessing for us with these Cowboys hunting next to us.

[Musky Buck]

For some it's numbers and getting shooting in and for some it's more the experience than the kill. I hunt 4 areas and 3 of 4 it's numbers and shooting and the good area it's the experience and trying to fool,figure out, cross paths with a mature buck.

[harvey lee]

Harvey,

I agree with you on almost everything. but I don't know if you understood what I was getting at. It seems like we go to extremes in our population, and maybe there are too many outside factors to even try and comprehend, but there are obviously issues when areas go from 5 deer to 1 deer. My question is why is there such a big jump between managed and intensive harvest for deer tags. Why is FIVE the number. It just seems like a very big jump, it more than doubles the number of deer taken. It just seems excessive to me. Why shouldn't 3 be the number for intensive harvest, especially if few people even take 3, and even less take 4 or 5. With cross tagging of management tags, why the need for 5 tags. It just seems like when the population is high, we feel like we have to reduce it right now and we can't adjust things gradually.

I also know of a couple of large groups of hunters that had a down year, but they have not been able to regulate themselves in the number of deer taken. Three years ago it was 20 deer, two years 15, last year under 10 and they complained. I don't get how they couldn't figure out why.

I would agree that 3 would seem to be plenty. May be a great question to ask St Paul or Lou.

Some cannot figure it out as all they are concerned about it what they can shoot today and do no0t worry about the future.

Future comes and they whine as they do not get to whack 5 deer or maybe even 1.

[Gordie]

I think the do the 5 deer so that will entice more hunters to the area that need the INTENSIVE harvest and they put those numbers up after doing the surveys of the deer herds and how they can best manage it and that's a number that seems to work for them.

Future comes and they whine as they do not get to whack 5 deer or maybe even 1.

Its either quality or quantity you will never satisfy everyone and you know as well as I do the medium ground is just not ever going to happen.

[harvey lee]

Quality is not by biggest concern to me at least in this topic.

Quantity is. Or shall I say the ups and down of the herd size.

I am very fortunate where I hunt as our neighbors do not overharvest doe's. So as long as we watch what we harvest according to the herd size and mix we can control those numbers a bit.

That's why this fall, I decided to not harvest a doe in ND on the land we have. Approx 12-13 years ago the herd was at a minimum and we decided to noy even hunt there. Probably thre first time my dad did not hunt deer in 5o+ years but we did not want to hurt the herd anymore than it had already been hurt from the previous winter.

One has to watch what they harvest if one wants good hunting from year to year hopefully. I personally do not like missing a hunt but in the long haul, it is best for future years.

[deerminator]

What I would like to know - and no one's producing numbers on - is just how big the "slaughter" was in intensive areas. Sure you could kill 5 deer but how many did versus those who took one or two? Just read a good article in Deer and Deer Hunting asking, with declining hunter numbers and abundant deer numbers, do we really even need bag limits any more? They cited Virgina and the possibility to take 156 deer in a season there per hunter as an example. On average, Virginia hunters took just 1.6 deer per season, 140 some less than they could have. The article went on to say that often these days seasons and bag limits are set more so for "social reasons," versus management. Another article I found of interest was on the relationship between wolves and coyotes in in country where they coexist. In any case, it mentioned that a "healthy" wolf will kill and eat an average of 15 deer per year. I'd be more worried about the wolves if they were in my area!

[certified jumbo]

Interesting Deerminator.

1 healthy wolf = roughly 15 deer a year.

3000 wolf times 15 deer = 45000 deer a year.

I agree, this isn't helping the situation.

[goblueM]

Interesting Deerminator.

1 healthy wolf = roughly 15 deer a year.

3000 wolf times 15 deer = 45000 deer a year.

I agree, this isn't helping the situation.

and that's only in wolf country, which further compounds the issue. I've never been a big "we gotta get rid of the wolves, they are eating all the deer" guy, but they are certainly having an impact.

I'm wondering if the DNR is thinning the herd in the north because of moose-management goals?

[Jeff13]

Has the DNR decided on a wolf hunt yet? I was checking out with some grocieries last night and there was an outdoor news up there and I thought it said something about a wolf hunt?

[lakevet]

Wolves as a factor rank far behind us hunters (esp with liberal limits and options to go anywhere in state, multiple seasons/weapons,etc,etc) and old man winter. Enjoy having wolves around, my family has coexisted with them for over 100 years both as farmers and hunters, and I do believe in managing them for variety of reasons. Those who are anchored to hunting a certain stand /food plot or 40 acre piece in wolf country can potentially experience "didn't see a single deer" type seasons. We expected a tougher muzzleloader hunt due to bad rifle season reports and an uptick in wolves in our area. However we were pleasantly surprised at the good number of deer in our area. They were not moving on their own much and in very specific areas. Hunting from a stand would have been very low success.

lakevet

[muskiemanAD]

What I would like to know - and no one's producing numbers on - is just how big the "slaughter" was in intensive areas. Sure you could kill 5 deer but how many did versus those who took one or two? Just read a good article in Deer and Deer Hunting asking, with declining hunter numbers and abundant deer numbers, do we really even need bag limits any more? They cited Virgina and the possibility to take 156 deer in a season there per hunter as an example. On average, Virginia hunters took just 1.6 deer per season, 140 some less than they could have. The article went on to say that often these days seasons and bag limits are set more so for "social reasons," versus management. Another article I found of interest was on the relationship between wolves and coyotes in in country where they coexist. In any case, it mentioned that a "healthy" wolf will kill and eat an average of 15 deer per year. I'd be more worried about the wolves if they were in my area!

That is nuts that they can shoot a deer a day! I wonder how many bucks live to maturity out there with that going on??

[goblueM]

I have been in SW Virginia for 2 deer seasons now. There are a lot of deer, just like in many areas of MN and Wisconsin. Lot less people though. Hard to hunt in many areas here, because its just thousands upon thousands of open hardwoods in the mountains. Lot of places that are very hard to access.

Its pretty tough to shoot more than 5 deer a year, even if you really try. Sure, a few people probably do, but the vast majority shoot 0, 1, or 2 I would wager.

"156 deer per hunter" is just ridiculous. The normal bag limit is 5, you can purchase additional bonus tags. But nobody would want to spend that much money on tags, ammunition, or can possibly shoot that many deer. Using 156 as the max limit is technically correct, but disengenous

Plenty of bucks live to maturity in the national forest here, they probably are never even seen by a hunter. Crappy genetics and body size for the most part, even for mature deer

[BLACKJACK]

Joining this post late but I would say in central MN where I hunt, zone 277, there are a lot of deer, we're presently classified as Lottery but I'd like to see it goto Managed. I can't say I saw deer every time out in the stand but I saw plenty of deer.

I'd hate to be the DNR and have to manage deer, some people want quality, some want quantity, and some want both. Then you have farmer concerns, car and insurance concerns, not fun to manage.

I would hope that they would error on the side of quantity, I'd rather see deer, and they can also rebound faster if there is a bad winter.

[Musky Buck]

I still wish they would've left the farm country as zone 4, our deer numbers may not be as low as they currently are with splitting the hunters and having 7 or 5 less days in the field. It's been nocturnal city the past 5 years for many in my area. It may not help that I'm stationed in the highest muzzy kill total in the state year after year also not that it's a huge # but those mature deer used to be part of next years crop to go after with the bow or rifle. With that said I think I'm likely in the highest pressured zone in the state also hence the extremely nocturnal nature after opening day which if you don't get good deer movement weather they'll know we're out there regardless. But, I view it like a casino, only so many can come out ahead with the deer they hoped for and quite a few aren't going to line up the 7's or deer. It's after the fact enough from the season now, went on a major scouting mission the other day to the best known deer areas in our zone and never saw a deer, kinda scary. They should be jumping off the nocturnal bandwagon pretty soon, then again this winter has been very bizarre. The melted hilltops of March/April will hold the for sure answer to the area herd(s).

[hockeybc69]

I wasnt a big fan of the Zone 4 to Zone 2 change either MB.

It was nice to have the population of hunters split across two weekends for the most part.

Those that wanted to hunt multiple seasons and weapons had the All Season license choice to do that if they so desired.

Now every Tom, Richard and Harry can hunt the 9 consecutive days of firearms season. It definitely has put the deer on high alert in my opinion.