MN deer herd

[hockeybc69]

The DNR will never make everyone happy. What a no win job.....

[MUSKY18]

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.

Nofish....I hunt 259 during rifle season as well. Hunting the same area for 17 years now. The ups and downs have been amazing. Late 90's we went without a deer for quite a number of years, and that was with 12-15 hunters. Then early 2000's, the party would have its tags filled out by Saturday at sundown. The past couple of years have definitely been on the downward spiral once again. Have gone from lottery to intensive to managed and now to hunters choice. After the couple seasons of intensive harvest went it went back to managed, it was like the deer disappeared. Shooting one deer was hard enough, let alone filly a bonus tag as well. Guess we'll just have to wait and see what this year brings! The buck in my avatar was shot in 259......19 hours on stand and he was the first deer I saw that weekend.

[nofishfisherman]

Musky18, What you said echos pretty much everything we've heard about 259 and surrounding areas. This will be my groups 3rd year hunting 259. We have 3-4 guys hunting public land, over the past 2 seasons we've had one guy see a couple small does one morning other than that its been very slow hunting. We usually drive around and talk to a few other camps hunting public land nearby and the same report came out of every camp.

We moved areas this year little further east and found some good sign in a couple spots so we'll see how it goes this year. I'm always hopeful but I won't be surprised if we don't see much again this season.

[NoWiser]

Nofish,

I've done quite a bit of hunting within a couple of miles of 259. I've shot quite a few deer there and literally every single one was smack dab in the middle of the day, when everyone else headed in for lunch. If I set up in a funnel area, I could pretty much count on deer running through starting about 10:00 in the morning. I'd usually be dragging the deer up to the truck about the time people headed back out to hunt. Something to keep in mind.....

That said, about 10 years ago the deer were thick as flies up there. One year our group had something like 17 deer opening day. I don't hunt much up there anymore, but it has slowed down considerably. The group has had about a 25% success rate the last few years.

I really don't know that the deer herd is in all that bad of shape in the state. I think people are just spoiled from what it was like a few years back. Still deer to be had, it just might take more than a few hours in the stand to get it done.

[PurpleFloyd]

I see the deer population being at the same level it has always been at. The Pheasant population, however, has taken a beating over the last 5 years. I think it is time to put a tail length restriction on Pheasant hunting.

[SmellEsox]

The DNR is absolutely the driver of harvests. The majority of hunters don't think about deer hunting until their doe permit application is due if they need one. They don't monitor the population year round, so they trust what the DNR tells them. If DNR says they can shoot 5, they assume there are a lot of deer and shoot as many as they can w/o thinking about it. Or they shoot what their party wants. If every hunter was more in touch with what was really happening w/ the population where they hunt, they would probably be more careful of what they shot.

[nofishfisherman]

The DNR is absolutely the driver of harvests. The majority of hunters don't think about deer hunting until their doe permit application is due if they need one. They don't monitor the population year round, so they trust what the DNR tells them. If DNR says they can shoot 5, they assume there are a lot of deer and shoot as many as they can w/o thinking about it. Or they shoot what their party wants. If every hunter was more in touch with what was really happening w/ the population where they hunt, they would probably be more careful of what they shot.

I think you're right. Most hunters go by what the limits are for their zone. If the population dips and they are seeing less deer most hunters won't take a year off to let the population recover, they'll still go out there and they'll probably take whatever deer they can. If its really slow they'll probably shoot the first thing they see regardless, won't matter if its a spike buck, a fawn with milk still dripping off its chin, or a 10 point buck. If its brown its down.

In reality we do need to rely on the DNR to managed the harvest. We only see what goes on in front of our stands. We can't see the big picture of the overall harvest for our zone or the state. Just because I see 10 deer on opening day doesn't necessarily mean the population is booming but then again if I see no deer it doesn't mean the population is necessarily depleted either. Its just not enough info for me to make an accurate judgement.

[BLACKJACK]

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. :-)

Its been my experience that the deer 'learn' where the food is going to be. When I first started with food plots, the 2-3 acres of corn would still have some left over in the spring and I'd end up picking some by hand. Now by January I'm seeing 30-40 deer a night and they'll have it cleaned up by Feb. 1. I'm up to 4 acres of corn and 2 of soybeans and they still clean it up. I'm also trying to feed the local pheasants and the past several years I've had to establish fenced in feeders just so that the pheasants have something to eat.

Back to the original poster, in this area, I see a lot of deer, I took a drive the other night at sunset and saw a lot of doe/fawn groups. We're not far enough north for winter to be a factor and I don't think that the coyotes are as big a problem as people make them out to be. I hear them quite often and we still see a lot of deer around.

[mntatonka]

The DNR is absolutely the driver of harvests. The majority of hunters don't think about deer hunting until their doe permit application is due if they need one. They don't monitor the population year round, so they trust what the DNR tells them. If DNR says they can shoot 5, they assume there are a lot of deer and shoot as many as they can w/o thinking about it. Or they shoot what their party wants. If every hunter was more in touch with what was really happening w/ the population where they hunt, they would probably be more careful of what they shot.

Even when the DNR gives hunters 5 permits, they still only shoot an average of 1.6 per successful hunter (edit). The couple of years where we hunted in an Intensive area, with an early antlerless season, Lou said he could probably count on one hand how many people actually used all the tags available. And we had one of those people in our hunting party.

Hunters are a controlling factor, we keep the population steady, but we don't bring it down much unless it's already low. We can bring it up by switching areas to lottery, but we don't bring it down much. Hard winters and predators are the biggest factors in deer population. That's why in much of the state the population seems lower these last couple of years.

[Jameson]

...Even when the DNR gives hunters 5 permits, they still only shoot an average of 1.6. The couple of years where we hunted in an Intensive area...

That is 1.6 per successful hunter, and something like .6 per hunter afield. Most folks only want one deer for the freezer per year. The trick to lowering the deer population via hunting is to get more hunters in the area, not necessarily giving the hunters more tags.

[mntatonka]

That is 1.6 per successful hunter, and something like .6 per hunter afield. Most folks only want one deer for the freezer per year. The trick to lowering the deer population via hunting is to get more hunters in the area, not necessarily giving the hunters more tags.

whoops, you're correct. I've edited my post to reflect that.

The problem with trying to get more hunters in the area is that many of the areas that have a lot of deer are also mostly private land. And a lot of those landowners are either leasing their land to hunters who only shoot a couple, or just don't let anyone else hunt.

[LandDr]

Wildlife populations are dependent on the "carrying capacity" of the property. If the land is left "as is", then that is the carrying capacity and the population ups and downs are more derived from other variables such as weather. If left as is, then there is nothing anyone can complain about because other variables are going to send the populations into those highs and lows. I am not sure if shutting down the deer season will fix anything since the population is actually determined by the carrying capacity of the land. You may see some short term gain, but it will quickly be put back into check with what the carrying capacity is. Also, you should still be able to have a buck season since one buck can service many does...just like one rooster services many hens. This carrying capacity also relates to pheasants...which is a whole other conversation.

Personally I don't like those highs and lows so I set out to eliminate or reduce the "limiting factors"...both for deer and pheasants since I am in the pheasant zone as well.

Probably at first I might have concentrated the deer because I provided what they wanted...but I don't believe that is the case anymore. I believe my reproduction exceeds the concentration and now I am actually contributing to deer leaving the property rather than coming into the property. Also, neighbors have seen what has happened and they too have started to implement projects to increase their carrying capacity...so the "deer per square mile" thing has gone up substantially I am sure. I don't really know for sure what their deer numbers are since I don't have access to their property and I have not done a sensus...but...looking at what they have done and hearing for the deer they are now harvesting, I would say their numbers are getting up to mine or one property may actually have more.

"Over abundance"...I don't believe I have an overabundance of deer. I have the number of deer that I want to support the number of doe groups that I want to obtain the number of dominant bucks that I want. I have approximately 7 doe groups with approximately 4 to 8 does per group which provides for approximately 5 dominant bucks with one or two bucks being in the 160+ range. Usually there is one each year in the 170+. This allows for the harvest of one or two of those dominant bucks, if I am lucky enough to get one of them, and allow the other ones to stay on the property with their doe group so they make it through the hunting season so they are older and bigger...next years stock. The property dictates the carrying capacity and how many deer it can hold. I have implemented projects to increase the carrying capacity to achieve these numbers. Nothing is "over run" and the deer are not destructive to trees, etc.

Here are a couple of the philosophies I have...

1. One doe group = 1 dominant buck. Increase the number of doe groups to increase the number of dominant bucks. Manage for the girls, not the boys.

2. Large doe groups hold bucks better. I like to have my doe groups with 6 to 8 does in each one...bucks usually will not leave a doe group that big. Manage for the girls, not the boys.

3. The greater carrying capacity in each 10 to 20 acre management area, the greater the ability to have smaller doe home ranges which opens up opportunity to have more doe groups. That relates back to #1.

Nonfisherman...I didn't know they were charging for the seminars. :-) I was just happy to be able to talk to a bunch of people and get the gears going. I did know Steve was going to be there and I believe he is up after me. Should be a lot of fun and very interesting!

[Jameson]

...The problem with trying to get more hunters in the area is that many of the areas that have a lot of deer are also mostly private land. And a lot of those landowners are either leasing their land to hunters who only shoot a couple, or just don't let anyone else hunt.

Right?!! And then we blame the DNR for not doing a good enough job. What are they supposed to do?

I've thought that the DNR should be able to tabulate the harvest numbers quick enough each Fall to have a late doe hunt in areas where harvest was below goals during the firearm season. Don't know how much good it would do, but the landowners/lessees described above might let someone on for such a hunt.

[MUSKY18]

I see there being one other problem that involves the hunters directly. How many hunters go out, shoot themselves a deer, tag it, throw it in the truck and take it right home to process it. They forget the one important step which is registering the deer with the DNR. As an example, 2 seasons ago the party that I hunt with shot 6 deer between everyone. Those deer were loaded up and taken directly to the cutting table. Never got registered. Now there are 6 deer out of the herd that the DNR has no way to account for being harvested. To them, they are still out roaming the woods as normal. Given that 6 deer not being registered isn't going to hurt the overall managment goals of the DNR, but how much does this happen statewide with 500,000 hunters out in the field? Willing to bet this is happening more often with the prices of processing on the rise.

[mntatonka]

Right?!! And then we blame the DNR for not doing a good enough job. What are they supposed to do?

I've thought that the DNR should be able to tabulate the harvest numbers quick enough each Fall to have a late doe hunt in areas where harvest was below goals during the firearm season. Don't know how much good it would do, but the landowners/lessees described above might let someone on for such a hunt.

You'd think so, right? but no, it takes them until Februrary many years to finish the deer numbers.

Besides, the late doe hunt would probably end up in January so it doesn't affect our precious bowhunters, and how many people are actually going to hunt for does in January during a Minnesota winter?

[sticknstring]

Quote:

How many hunters go out, shoot themselves a deer, tag it, throw it in the truck and take it right home to process it. They forget the one important step which is registering the deer with the DNR.

I do this every year. But now that registration is done online, I do it from the comfort of home. Just because you butcher your own deer doesn't imply they're not being registered. Takes literally 30 seconds.

[mntatonka]

I do this every year. But now that registration is done online, I do it from the comfort of home. Just because you butcher your own deer doesn't imply they're not being registered. Takes 30 literally 30 seconds.

I believe the DNR also adds in an error into their calculations to factor in the people that don't register deer. Obviously it's not completely accurate since they don't know the exact percentage that don't register, but I think they have an educated guess on how many it really is.

[TruthWalleyes]

Bout 5 years ago I was hunting by grand marais with a guy... 60yrs old. Lived up there his whole life. Never registered a deer in his life lol.

I think they are the few

[wally243]

I am willing to bet that the DNR puts out the actual numbers with the deer harvest less that 1 out of 10 years. Just saying. Its all about the money folks, just like everything in life. They ran a deer heard from awesome to nothing in 3 years in western Minnesota just because they could sell the tags. Just ask one of them that will tell the truth. Its coming back, but you can't shoot muszzleloaders at heards of 100 deer that are hearded up for the winter and expect a good population. One guy said they shot a ton of nice big does the last couple years and couldn't find any deer now. LOL I shoot fork horns by the way. I figure I help the population and I work to support my family so I only get one good crack and then back to work. Good luck this season....

[SmellEsox]

mntatonka, thank God few shoot 5. If they did, we'd have no deer left because there are 3x as many tags as deer in most intensive zones. Landdr, I think you have way too many deer on your property. If this was done statewide, it would be a disaster for ag producers and anyone driving a vehicle would need a cowcatcher on their car. Unsustainable on a large scale and I'm sure native forbs and browse would suffer greatly and it would impact other wildlife species for the negative. Would be fun to do though.

[PurpleFloyd]

I see there being one other problem that involves the hunters directly. How many hunters go out, shoot themselves a deer, tag it, throw it in the truck and take it right home to process it. They forget the one important step which is registering the deer with the DNR. As an example, 2 seasons ago the party that I hunt with shot 6 deer between everyone. Those deer were loaded up and taken directly to the cutting table. Never got registered. Now there are 6 deer out of the herd that the DNR has no way to account for being harvested. To them, they are still out roaming the woods as normal. Given that 6 deer not being registered isn't going to hurt the overall managment goals of the DNR, but how much does this happen statewide with 500,000 hunters out in the field? Willing to bet this is happening more often with the prices of processing on the rise.

What would happen if the DNR did a freezer check and there wasn't a registration tag for the meat? Isn't it against the law to process an unregistered deer? I would imagine they don't have an accurate number for how many are poached either. There is only so much they can be expected to do.

[mntatonka]

mntatonka, thank God few shoot 5. If they did, we'd have no deer left because there are 3x as many tags as deer in most intensive zones. Landdr, I think you have way too many deer on your property. If this was done statewide, it would be a disaster for ag producers and anyone driving a vehicle would need a cowcatcher on their car. Unsustainable on a large scale and I'm sure native forbs and browse would suffer greatly and it would impact other wildlife species for the negative. Would be fun to do though.

It's those tags that give us the chance to lower the population in areas that need it. That's the only way we have to manage the population, since we can't always count on predators and bad winters every year. A few years of mild winters and disease in the predators, and you've got an overpopulation problem again. If the population goes down as it has across much of the state to the point where hunters can keep it in check, then we lower tag availability.

Thankfully farmers have crop damage permits if they work at getting them, many of which have to be used during the seasons this year. That's the only method we have of dropping the population so we don't lose massive amounts of our crops each year. Granted, I'm in an extreme area, but each hunter in our party can legally take 12 deer this year when you factor in all the tags, along with an extra few across the party for landowner tags. I hope we can get a quarter or a third of our total limit, then maybe we won't lose 50% of our corn like our neighbor has this year.

[Scott K]

Well maybe you need to have more people in your hunting party?? Rather then just giving out more permits? If you have that many deer, I would love to come help you thin them out. I promise, I am a good shot.

[PurpleFloyd]

Wildlife populations are dependent on the "carrying capacity" of the property. If the land is left "as is", then that is the carrying capacity and the population ups and downs are more derived from other variables such as weather. If left as is, then there is nothing anyone can complain about because other variables are going to send the populations into those highs and lows. I am not sure if shutting down the deer season will fix anything since the population is actually determined by the carrying capacity of the land. You may see some short term gain, but it will quickly be put back into check with what the carrying capacity is. Also, you should still be able to have a buck season since one buck can service many does...just like one rooster services many hens. This carrying capacity also relates to pheasants...which is a whole other conversation.

Personally I don't like those highs and lows so I set out to eliminate or reduce the "limiting factors"...both for deer and pheasants since I am in the pheasant zone as well.

Probably at first I might have concentrated the deer because I provided what they wanted...but I don't believe that is the case anymore. I believe my reproduction exceeds the concentration and now I am actually contributing to deer leaving the property rather than coming into the property. Also, neighbors have seen what has happened and they too have started to implement projects to increase their carrying capacity...so the "deer per square mile" thing has gone up substantially I am sure. I don't really know for sure what their deer numbers are since I don't have access to their property and I have not done a sensus...but...looking at what they have done and hearing for the deer they are now harvesting, I would say their numbers are getting up to mine or one property may actually have more.

"Over abundance"...I don't believe I have an overabundance of deer. I have the number of deer that I want to support the number of doe groups that I want to obtain the number of dominant bucks that I want. I have approximately 7 doe groups with approximately 4 to 8 does per group which provides for approximately 5 dominant bucks with one or two bucks being in the 160+ range. Usually there is one each year in the 170+. This allows for the harvest of one or two of those dominant bucks, if I am lucky enough to get one of them, and allow the other ones to stay on the property with their doe group so they make it through the hunting season so they are older and bigger...next years stock. The property dictates the carrying capacity and how many deer it can hold. I have implemented projects to increase the carrying capacity to achieve these numbers. Nothing is "over run" and the deer are not destructive to trees, etc.

Here are a couple of the philosophies I have...

1. One doe group = 1 dominant buck. Increase the number of doe groups to increase the number of dominant bucks. Manage for the girls, not the boys.

2. Large doe groups hold bucks better. I like to have my doe groups with 6 to 8 does in each one...bucks usually will not leave a doe group that big. Manage for the girls, not the boys.

3. The greater carrying capacity in each 10 to 20 acre management area, the greater the ability to have smaller doe home ranges which opens up opportunity to have more doe groups. That relates back to #1.

Nonfisherman...I didn't know they were charging for the seminars. :-) I was just happy to be able to talk to a bunch of people and get the gears going. I did know Steve was going to be there and I believe he is up after me. Should be a lot of fun and very interesting!

There are a lot of sensible thoughts in that post. It would seem that much of it runs counter to the mindset of what I hear on the subject of herd management.

[Coach1310]

Landdr..... good post, but can you truly say that the only factor is carrying capacity? I guess what I mean is, I completely understand that the land can only grow, shelter, feed, take care of, etc. so many deer, but to say the only reason a certain area has X amount of deer is because of its carrying capacity eliminates many factors. For example, when you first started managing your property, I safely assume that some deer from neighboring properties became residents of your property for the most part because you had possibly better food, better cover, less pressure etc. Now the neighbor has say 10 less deer on his property. In essence his properties ability to carry deer didn't diminish, they just found a better place. Maybe I have it out of whack, but I don't think just carrying capacity can be the only factor. You can have the greatest property in the world, but if winter, wolves and hunters take all the deer, it won't matter.