MN deer herd

[MUSKY18]

Looking over the map for the upcoming gun season and got me wondering if the deer numbers are down across the state in general. I bet half of the zones are now lottery, many Hunters Choice and fewer Managed and Intensive harvest areas. Is this a direct reflection of hard winters and liberal harvest laws the past years that have reduced the her numbers to the point where the DNR needs to really limit the harvest to try and get the numbers back up?

[TruthWalleyes]

Managed and Intensive zones have been on the decline for a few years now. I can't make an assumption as to whether the herd is declining, or if it is an effort to reduce harvest and increase population.

[mntatonka]

Looking over the map for the upcoming gun season and got me wondering if the deer numbers are down across the state in general. I bet half of the zones are now lottery, many Hunters Choice and fewer Managed and Intensive harvest areas. Is this a direct reflection of hard winters and liberal harvest laws the past years that have reduced the her numbers to the point where the DNR needs to really limit the harvest to try and get the numbers back up?

mostly a direct result of hard winters. Also, the DNR's population goal is to have most areas hunter's choice or managed. For the most part, I don't think hunters can actually drop a population without the help of the winter. Most successful hunters, even in intensive harvest areas, only take an average of 1.6 deer per year (according to Lou's numbers a few years ago). That doesn't do much to a population in most places.

In general, the DNR is 3 years behind on their population estimates though. It takes them that long to make a change to the quota in an area. Even then, they've been known to be wrong in a lot of cases. I can only speak for the extreme southeast, but the DNR numbers are apparently way off, since most of Zone 3 is managed areas and has more crop damage than when it was intensive harvest for so many years.

[BRULEDRIFTER]

Yes! At least in the northern region (I can't speak for the southern parts of the state).

I put on a lot of miles driving all over Northern MN for work and this spring/summer and fall I rarely see deer.

Numbers are way down, and IMO, they are down a lot more than most realize. There are pockets of strong numbers in certain areas, but overall, having 4 blizzards in April and snow cover till almost mid-May did a lot of damage to the deer. Couple that with liberal harvest seasons and a budgeoning wolf population too boot, and you get what we have today.

On a bright note, as long as this winter stays fair, wolf numbers, I believe, have dropped considerably and hopefully the deer can rebound a bit. (I have seen no where near the wolf scat on the roads and trails like last few years, and from last fall through this spring I saw over 20 wolves... I haven't seen one since February, aside for a few on trail cameras).

[sticknstring]

2012 harvest was the lowest we've had since 1999. Obviously, numbers are down quite a bit. As expected, there are fewer managed areas up north this year and more in the southern half of the state where winter severity wasn't as bad. I'd expect a similar harvest this year, maybe a touch higher.

[slimngrizzly]

I think most people have the misunderstanding that the DNR (well.... the MN goverment) WANTS the numbers up.... I dont think so. Increasing the human population and decreasing the deer population is all part of the plan i think.

As long as Joe Public hears the herd is healthy, all is good. It could be up or down 10's of thousands and how would we know the difference.

It about the worst in my area as ive seen it... and I dont know that its an accident... less deer, fewer mature bucks, and more and more expensive license options. dumb

[SmellEsox]

I think numbers are down. What amazes me though is that the estimate every year is 1 million deer. For the last decade or more, the population is 1 million. Doesn't make any sense to me. To be honest, if the herd doubled in my area, I'd hardly notice.

[sticknstring]

Just like the 3,000 wolves number being used for the past decade plus. Huh.

[Musky Buck]

Deer numbers are without a doubt down in my areas, tcams have been really quiet the last 2 years and just not seeing much throughout the summer and up till today. I walk our gravel road most days past what used to be deer trails entering our woods/crossing the road and there are no tracks at all, they're in the standing corn so I walked nearly a mile before this rainy stuff and there was very little sign on edges that usually would have a lot of sign, it'll be difficult to get the numbers up no matter how they manage it because most are very trigger happy for their venison and having longer seasons with plenty of tags will just thin out an already thin herd. Figure 20 deer stands in our section and maybe a dozen deer, that's the deal somewhat and many went deerless last year so passing on anything this year isn't happening. Plus we have the timberwolf now and that has really done major damage to the what's left wintering herd in Ottertail County between Henning Deer Creek and NYM. Now these farmland goats are hunted year round.

[nofishfisherman]

Unfortunately for most of us population numbers are just guess work based off our observations of a very small percentage of Minnesota. I could tell you that there are zero deer in zone 259 but that would only be based on my groups findings over 1 year of hunting and it wouldn't be an accurate population estimate.

Its obvious the deer population is down over the past several years. There is no one single cause since impacts of winter, wolves, liberal harvests, CWD, etc, are different for various parts of the state. Its likely a combination of all these elements in varying degrees plus perhaps other factors that aren't so obvious.

One thing I am noticing in the areas I've hunted over the last few years is that with fewer deer being seen hunters are being less and less selective during their hunts. I am seeing more small bucks and more small does hanging from meat poles around the area where in previous years hunters where being more selective and waiting for larger bucks or older does. With hunters shooting anything that moves because it may be the only deer they see for the year we'll likely see more of an impact on populations and quality of deer. Hunters are willing to pass on younger deer when they think they have the possibilty of seeing something bigger, but with little hope of that they'll start to take any deer then can to fill their tags.

[paceman]

Doesn't matter to me if the numbers are up or down. I will still hunt as much as I can and I will fill all my tag. I think the numbers in my area have stabilized the last few years. I am fine with that.

[Bear55]

As stated above the million deer and 3K wolves have been steady number for years, I suspect the dnr just doesn't know or does want to post what they think in case they are wrong. During the late 90's those winters killed a ton of deer, then everything boomed in the mid 2000's. Everyone I know all over the state was seeing 3 or 4 or 5 times as many deer as the 90's. At the very least the state wide population should have doubled. Just wish the DNR had the balls to be honest with people.

[Musky Buck]

Nofish you said what I meant thank you, no selective harvest so it's hammer what little you see or someone else will. There were way more deer around in the early 80's when it was 3 days of bucks only the 1st weekend or 2 days lottery doe the second. This change from zone 4 to 2 I still feel really is bad on farmland deer, sure the 1st season and the 2nd of zone 2 were ok, now we've thinned the herd dramatically in places like 0 wintering herd in our neighbors tamarac swamp, my haven for shed antlers is done, then mix in a tough winter, DNR still allowing 3 tags when it should've been 1 a few years back, and add in wolves that were never in our area until recently last 5 years or so and here's what we got, I could easily foresee now a closed deer season coming. We get that winter of 1997 and your rifle will collect dust the next year. I'd like to see 1 year of bucks only some will say oh the pressure on the bucks well aren't the bucks under mass pressure regardless ? Seems to be the case. Thing is with a bucks only hunt now with wolves heavy in some localized areas they are still each going to kill 12-20 deer a year anyway. Montana feels 500 wolves is their goal, what the @#$% is the matter with our DNR and our goal, cmon elk,antelope,mullies,moose,whitetails,goats you name it and we have primarily 1 whitetailed deer and we want how dog gone many wolves roaming our state, cmon, enough already look at what that growing pop did to defenseless moose.

[LandDr]

I have not been reading all of this thread but catch a little here and there.

My question is...why leave it up to the DNR or other groups to manage the deer?

What I mean is...some 90% of the wildlife in MN are raised on PRIVATE lands and something like 17% of the land is owned by the State. Of course there is more State owned land up north than down south...but the fact is that most wildlife are raised on private lands.

So if you want more deer and better deer, start managing for them. Most land in my opinion have very high limiting factors and very low carrying capacities. All you have to do is put some effort into it and change it. That can be done on public land as well...contact the DNR and ask if you can do some projects. As long as the projects are not excessive, they more often will let you. Of course everyone gets to hunt your project, but everyone gets to hunt the project if the DNR did it as well.

On the farm I hunt deer, I have done a lot to increase the carrying capacity and reduce the limiting factors. On this 160 acres, I have approximately 1 deer per 2 to 2.5 acres. Yes...that comes out to a lot of deer. I have approximately 7 doe groups with 50 to 60 does total (sometimes up to 70) along with 12 to 15 bucks ranging from spikes to 160+ class. For the most part, the deer stay on the property...because they like it there. :-) I will usually see between 20 and 30 deer each time I sit in a stand.

You get out of it what you put into it. My philosophy is my "Management by Thirds" concept that I developed a few years back...1\3 woody cover (shrubs n conifers) associated with 1\3 food source (can be 20% to 33%) along with 1\3 tall dense grass or shrub cover. When you develop this concept on every 10 to 20 acre area, the results will show themselves.

If you want a tour or start this on your property...just let me know. I am giving a seminar in Hillman, MN for the Milacs Whitetails on Saturday at 1pm if you have a chance to be there.

[mntatonka]

I have not been reading all of this thread but catch a little here and there.

My question is...why leave it up to the DNR or other groups to manage the deer?

What I mean is...some 90% of the wildlife in MN are raised on PRIVATE lands and something like 17% of the land is owned by the State. Of course there is more State owned land up north than down south...but the fact is that most wildlife are raised on private lands.

So if you want more deer and better deer, start managing for them. Most land in my opinion have very high limiting factors and very low carrying capacities. All you have to do is put some effort into it and change it. That can be done on public land as well...contact the DNR and ask if you can do some projects. As long as the projects are not excessive, they more often will let you. Of course everyone gets to hunt your project, but everyone gets to hunt the project if the DNR did it as well.

On the farm I hunt deer, I have done a lot to increase the carrying capacity and reduce the limiting factors. On this 160 acres, I have approximately 1 deer per 2 to 2.5 acres. Yes...that comes out to a lot of deer. I have approximately 7 doe groups with 50 to 60 does total (sometimes up to 70) along with 12 to 15 bucks ranging from spikes to 160+ class. For the most part, the deer stay on the property...because they like it there. :-) I will usually see between 20 and 30 deer each time I sit in a stand.

You get out of it what you put into it. My philosophy is my "Management by Thirds" concept that I developed a few years back...1\3 woody cover (shrubs n conifers) associated with 1\3 food source (can be 20% to 33%) along with 1\3 tall dense grass or shrub cover. When you develop this concept on every 10 to 20 acre area, the results will show themselves.

If you want a tour or start this on your property...just let me know. I am giving a seminar in Hillman, MN for the Milacs Whitetails on Saturday at 1pm if you have a chance to be there.

You might want to double check your math, I doubt if you've got a deer per two acres. I certainly hope not, since that would be approximately 320 deer per square mile, which absolutely no habitat can support.

I can guarantee you that the majority of the deer don't always stay on that 160 acres, their range is much larger than that. They might bed on that land knowing it's relatively safe, but they aren't only staying there.

It's also tough if you're a farmer who hunts for fun, and have a neighbor such as yourself who is managing for a ton of deer. That farmer is feeding your deer more than you think, and losing large amounts of money and opportunity because of it.

[Musky Buck]

20 to 30 deer per sit so like an average 9 day deer season you see between 180-270 deer ? I haven't seen that many hunting 4 chunks in 3 different counties in the last 20 years in what the DNR classifies the area as having the highest densities in the state. DO you ever shoot 1 ? Your area is ripe for a pack of wolves to help you out.

[LandDr]

I never said there were 320 deer in the square mile...I said I have 60 to 80 deer on my 160 ac.

I have my calculations straight. I have 10 to 12 cameras out to monitor as well as observation towers and what I see per sitting.

Sure...the deer wander off but not far since I provide them with the food and cover they already want. I don't just have a 3 acre food plot. In my management design, 20% of 160 is 32 acres of food...I have more than that as well! Closer to the 30%.

The deer are not eating all of the farmers crops...but they do eat mine. In fact, the farmer and relatives line up on my property line because they know where the deer are. I have approached him to do some habitat work but everything is farmed. That is his choice and he is trying to make a living. I can appreciate that.

I guess you will just have to come out and see if for yourself. :-)

[LandDr]

Musky...I will see many of the same deer of those groups if I sit in certain stands. Doe groups have their food sources, cover, boundaries, etc. so I will see different deer when I sit in different stands...but I will see those deer in the morning and those deer again in the evening.

Since we have a lot of cameras out, we get to notice the differences in the deer and can start identifying them when they come out. Pretty interesting and fun.

I am in a one deer harvest area...so we take about 3 or 4 per year. Some cross over the fence and they neighbors get them...that is fine.

In the evening, there are deer literally all around me...very hard to get out of the stand! I have had someone drive in to get the deer to go back into the cover so I can get out...or I will wait for the train to go by and sneak out quickly during load whistle blows. Mornings I get out super early to beat the deer out, doesn't always happen, and then wait until the last deer goes into cover so I can leave if I need to.

Each year I will have around 12 to 15 bucks and we get camera shots of them. They will most often have different characteristics to their antlers so we know them when they step out.

[nofishfisherman]

Either way its still alot of deer and is obviously a unique situation that not everyone is capable of replicating. Not everyone has the land, time, money, or inclination to modify the land to support an over abundance of deer like that. I'm sure there are a few people around the state who have enough land and who have engineered their land with the sole purpose of increasing deer populations but its not the norm and really can't be the norm. Also I question whether or not it really increases the population rather than just concentrating the population. I suspect if you look at the average deer population over say a 5-10 mile area around the property it wouldn't be much higher than average. I find it more likely that all the deer that might normally be spread out over a larger area are simply concentrated on this one property. Its good for one person, not so much for anyone else.

[sticknstring]

Kyle, is the cost still $100/head for the seminar? Should be a wealth of knowledge shared w/ you & Bartylla there. Great opportunity for landowners!

[mntatonka]

I never said there were 320 deer in the square mile...I said I have 60 to 80 deer on my 160 ac.

I have my calculations straight. I have 10 to 12 cameras out to monitor as well as observation towers and what I see per sitting.

Sure...the deer wander off but not far since I provide them with the food and cover they already want. I don't just have a 3 acre food plot. In my management design, 20% of 160 is 32 acres of food...I have more than that as well! Closer to the 30%.

The deer are not eating all of the farmers crops...but they do eat mine. In fact, the farmer and relatives line up on my property line because they know where the deer are. I have approached him to do some habitat work but everything is farmed. That is his choice and he is trying to make a living. I can appreciate that.

I guess you will just have to come out and see if for yourself. :-)

no, you said "I have approximately 1 deer per 2 to 2.5 acres", that comes out to 250-320 deer per square mile. There's a lot of acres in a square mile, 640 to be exact.

[nofishfisherman]

That math would be correct but I highly doubt that population density extends much beyond his 160 acres. If you look at the additional 480 surrounding arcres you probably won't find many more deer than what live on his property.

Like I mentioned earlier I doubt he's actually boosting populations rather he's just concentrating them into a relatively small area. Same idea as putting a huge pile of corn on your property. That corn doesn't increase overall populations, it just concentrates the existing poplation around the pile of corn.

[hockeybc69]

Quote:

There's a lot of acres in a square mile, 640 to be exact.

Thats true, but that other 480 acres could be farm field with zero cover after harvest too.

[Coach1310]

Landdr, thank you for sharing and while I agree the better job we do managing privately, the results will be a LOT better, it just isn't feasible. Very few have the means to do anything more than selectively harvest. I would LOVE to have the $$$ and time to own a few hundred acres and manage it for whitetails and encourage my neighbors to do the same, but that isn't an option. In my opinion the easiest fix if you are worried about deer numbers and the quality of the herd. Shut down the season for one year and then make it all does the next year(or a doe heavy quota). It will increase the age structure which many want. It will help provide more mature bucks which many want and with the right quota harvest of does, it will hopefully balance out the herd. The problems lie with #1- The public won't support it. #2- The DNR can't afford it and #3- You have WAY TOO MANY opinions and goals when it comes to hunting to ever really make in right in everyone's eyes.

[bowhunternw]

I have to agree that no one can blame deer numbers on the dnr, well maybe on state land. No one forced them to fill bonus tags. Wolves definitely do have an impact but not even close to what hunting does. I am big on habitat but if you have the right conditions you can grow and hold alot of deer. And even though numbers are lower than they were, it is probably were it should be.