Lowering our Low Expectations

[sticknstring]

You're right, deserve wasn't the right word. I work hard for my success and never feel entitled to anything in the woods.

From the posts above, WORKING & MAKING deer hunting better in MN is being sought. We all know it's not going to happen without some work and some sacrifice.

[sticknstring]

It doesn't necessarily have to be APR. That's just what was agreed upon in the SE. It was a compromise rather than moving gun season back. Any form of yearling buck protection will put added pressure on antlerless deer until a legal sizable buck population is established.

[SmellEsox]

I didn't think this was a discussion about APR. I thought this was a discussion about how low our expectations need to be in order to enjoy hunting in MN. APR is a whole different subject that has been thrashed to death several times. My beef in this thread is that DNR manages for way too few deer.

[Getanet]

The reason APRs were able to be implemented in the SE was because of an already high deer population there. In my opinion APR would be devastating in areas with low or relatively low deer populations.

[mntatonka]

It did initially after APR was initiated. Look up the doe/buck harvest data from '10 & '11. Now in it's 4th year, the harvest has equaled back out.

you might want to check your math. I've got the doe harvest dropping by 431 from 08-09, 483 from 09-10, 1678 from 10-11, and 1055 from 11-12. It NEVER increased the doe harvest the way it was intended.

[mntatonka]

The reason APRs were able to be implemented in the SE was because of an already high deer population there. In my opinion APR would be devastating in areas with low or relatively low deer populations.

considering how well they worked here, it would probably actually help the population in those areas since it did exactly the opposite of what it was advertised.

[sticknstring]

you might want to check your math. I've got the doe harvest dropping by 431 from 08-09, 483 from 09-10, 1678 from 10-11, and 1055 from 11-12. It NEVER increased the doe harvest the way it was intended.

Do you have % of buck/doe for total harvest in front of your for those years? I'm having trouble locating those numbers. It's difficult to compare to previous years since the population as a whole has decreased every year.

I won't get into any more detail on yearling buck protection in this thread, but rather leave it with my above posts re: expectations and overall satisfaction of deer hunting in the state. If you're not completely satisfied, please voice your opinions to those that can improve it.

[mntatonka]

Do you have % of buck/doe for total harvest in front of your for those years? I'm having trouble locating those numbers. It's difficult to compare to previous years since the population as a whole has decreased every year.

I won't get into any more detail on yearling buck protection in this thread, but rather leave it with my above posts re: expectations and overall satisfaction of deer hunting in the state. If you're not completely satisfied, please voice your opinions to those that can improve it.

There hasn't really been a trend for % harvest. Buck harvest percentage from 08-12: 38, 40, 32, 35, 41. And it certainly isn't because population in Zone 3 has gone down, the pre-fawn density maps the DNR puts out shows the population dropping in 2009, but going way back up in 2010 and 2011, to levels at or above what they were pre-2009.

[SmellEsox]

It would stand to reason that if the population of deer in the SE is declining, you would naturally shoot fewer does every year.

[sticknstring]

The reason APRs were able to be implemented in the SE was because of an already high deer population there. In my opinion APR would be devastating in areas with low or relatively low deer populations.

I completely agree. Any form of yearling buck protection won't have a leg to stand on until populations are increased. This isn't a statewide push. It's for areas of central MN that has the habitat to support more deer. Once levels are deemed adequate, regulation could then be expanded. Hopefully previous success can help make the push.

[Musky Buck]

If you hunt the Hillview Management area near Sebeka you have very very high expectations. Google that and see what age on our deer look like, they just put the 2012 pictures on their HSOforum. Really want a piece of land near that but you'd have to be a real dummy to give up that turf. Honestly, I had low expectations and it was the best season I've had since 1988 and I only hunted 2.5 days of the 9. It is so hard to tell nowadays, trailcams are huge because these deer are so nocturnal long before season it makes scouting from roads a thing of the past, I just don't see squat driving around, never saw a deer before dark at our neighbors yet saw 7 bucks and 3 does opening morning and there's only a 100 acre chunk of cover everything else is field so idk, now next year across the gravel might be the spot on the spot vs my spots this year, it to me depended on where the does wanted to be November 9th and thankfully they were there, next year different crops/harvest dates/ and might not see much.

[sticknstring]

Musky - good news! That property is for sale and could be yours for only $5.9 million!

Hillview Management Property - Sebeka

[PurpleFloyd]

So basically what we hear is that every deer gets shot, we are putting too much pressure on the deer and there are no deer left to hunt and there are too many hunters yet looking at the stats :

we are down from 648k licenses in 2003 to 459k this season.

The number of deer with antlers harvested is significantly lower this season as is the total harvest compared to 2003.

The deer population is still running at around the 1 Million mark which means only 15% of the total population was harvested by the firearms season.

There are numerous reports all over this site about haring fewer shots that ever before, seeing fewer hunters in the woods and yet somehow all of this leads to we are shooting all of the deer and there are no big ones left.

It can't be both ways.

[SmellEsox]

Purple, if you believe the initial DNR population estimates of 1,000,000 deer, I have some swampland for sale. Every year it is 1,000,000. Do you honestly believe that? Our harvest has declined by 50% since 2003, and yet there is still 1,000,000 deer??? That figure is thrown out there with no basis. It was either way more than 1,000,000 10 years ago, or there are way fewer than 1,000,000 now.

[sticknstring]

So you mean there might actually be more than 3,000 wolves in MN? Nah... can't be.

[PurpleFloyd]

Purple, if you believe the initial DNR population estimates of 1,000,000 deer, I have some swampland for sale. Every year it is 1,000,000. Do you honestly believe that? Our harvest has declined by 50% since 2003, and yet there is still 1,000,000 deer??? That figure is thrown out there with no basis. It was either way more than 1,000,000 10 years ago, or there are way fewer than 1,000,000 now.

So what is it according to your estimation? The facts that you failed to point out that cannot be argued is we are shooting fewer bucks (76000 in 2011 and 116,000 in 2004) fewer does and fewer overall deer and there are fewer licenses being sold, fewer hunters in the woods and fewer deer being harvested. Correct?

[sticknstring]

It's difficult to compare license sales going much past '07 since there were so many different types. There was a multi-zone buck license & an all-season deer license in addition to the regular licenses and bonus tags.

[mntatonka]

It's difficult to compare license sales going much past '07 since there were so many different types. There was a multi-zone buck license & an all-season deer license in addition to the regular licenses and bonus tags.

true. However, the DNR also put the estimated hunter numbers in their report, based on some algorithm they developed taking into account that a hunter could hunt multiple seasons/zones on one license. So the hunter numbers are still accurate, at least according to the DNR.

[SmellEsox]

"So what is it according to your estimation? The facts that you failed to point out that cannot be argued is we are shooting fewer bucks (76000 in 2011 and 116,000 in 2004) fewer does and fewer overall deer and there are fewer licenses being sold, fewer hunters in the woods and fewer deer being harvested. Correct?"

Correct (although I don't know that hunter numbers have declined significantly). And all these are indicators of a declining deer population. DNR's own model uses buck harvest as its main predictor of population trends. If buck harvest increases, it is assumed the population has increased. If buck harvest declines, I assume they assume the population has declined (although their interpretation is usually that it declined due to weather, wind, crops, hunter laziness, the Vikings game, or other). I even think the decline in hunter numbers (if that is true) is a sign of poor hunting. You lose casual hunters when hunting is bad. If hunting was good, you'd recruit those hunters.

[sticknstring]

Here's the past 6 years of data for total harvest and total licenses sold. *2013 approximate based on updated DNR data provide above 11/20.

A few scary trends pop out to me. The first is number of licenses sold. Hunter recruitment is very important & this trend should be climbing. The 2nd is the decrease in total deer harvest far exceeds the decrease percentage in number of licenses sold. Taking 2008 numbers compared to 2013 for example, you have a 21% decline in harvest opposted to only a 10% decline in licenses sold. According to the DNR, 80% of areas are/have been at goal. This tells me that hunting is going to be poor for quite a while if left as is.

2013 175,000 715,000*

2012 186,634 723,716

2011 192,331 759,275

2010 207,313 753,274

2009 194,186 749,190

2008 221,837 792,148

[Scott K]

I can tell you one thing that effects this number a lot is available land. Years ago, there were a ton a small 3-20 acre woods all over in Southern MN that held deer, that most owners/farmers would let you hunt. Today, anywhere there is a couple trees in a field, there is a house in it. This pretty much takes that section out of hunting. These little areas use to work great for a quick morning hunt, or even a quick deer drive. No more.

Another thing that has changed is, a lot of land in years past, you could just go up to the land owner and they would give you permission. Today, not so much. They either have family members that hunt it, or it is a large corporation that owns it now, and for insurance purposes they dont allow hunting on their land. I had a large area taken over by city limits last season. What use to be a great deer hunting spot, with 175 acres of prime hunting land, is now no hunting. I lost 2 other spots recently as well. One spot got lost by people leasing the land, another spot, was an uncle who passed away, and they lotted the area out, and it now has a housing development, along with a sight seeing area for tourists, to do zip lining.

After losing my spot last season, I have now given up on slug hunting in MN, and now I just bow hunt in MN, and then gun hunt in Wisconsin.

[PurpleFloyd]

Here's the past 6 years of data for total harvest and total licenses sold. *2013 approximate based on updated DNR data provide above 11/20.

A few scary trends pop out to me. The first is number of licenses sold. Hunter recruitment is very important & this trend should be climbing. The 2nd is the total decrease in total deer harvest far exceeds total decline percentage in number of licenses sold. Taking 2008 numbers compared to 2013 for example, you have a 21% decline in harvest opposted to only a 10% decline in licenses sold. According to the DNR, 80% of areas are/have been at goal. This tells me that hunting is going to be poor for quite a while if left as is.

2013 175,000 715,000*

2012 186,634 723,716

2011 192,331 759,275

2010 207,313 753,274

2009 194,186 749,190

2008 221,837 792,148

One thing that stands out is that the total for firearms youth licenses and especially bonus tags have exploded and for archery the number of licenses has gone up fairly significantly as well.

If the deer population is indeed dropping the best first step would be to end the bonus tags and just let each hunter have one tag period. I do like the fact that the youth participation is increasing so I would not touch that. Then after 4-5 years see what changes we see with th elimination of the bonus tags.

[Musky Buck]

No doubt Scott K, same in central MN, groves of trees are being cut to put in field, housing developments, you name it, habitat loss hurts, farmers efficiently plowing everything under hurts, it all is part of the whole equation. Baiting is out of hand really. Length of hunting 32 days in zone 1 or 25 in zone 2 if you want even the switch from zone 4 to 2 adding in wolves has an effect, it all relates to each other and I'm thankful my relatives are very selective hunters because generally ample deer survive on their lands helping the area out the next fall and many are doing the same, those kinds of areas are pretty solid most years.

[SmellEsox]

I agree 100% Scott. And I agree with you too Purple. But I don't think DNR Wildlife wants to reduce pressure. They want to keep deer numbers down. Less complaints then.

[sticknstring]

Habitat is decreasing for sure. It congregates deer and takes some license sales. But these areas are far from carrying capacity. How many hunters in MN know what a browse line is?