Gun numbers from DNR

[BuckSutherland]

(Released December 9, 2013)

Minnesota hunters harvested 164,550 deer during 2013, according to preliminary numbers announced by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.

Through the beginning of December, firearms hunters harvested 144,000 deer, a 6 percent drop from the 153,000 harvested in 2012. Preliminary numbers for the late season in southeastern Minnesota show hunters harvested 4,400 deer, down from the 5,000 harvested in 2012.

The statewide muzzleloader season remains open through Sunday, Dec. 15. The archery season closes on Tuesday, Dec. 31.

Deer harvest numbers are calculated using data provided by hunters when they register a deer. A final report, which includes more detailed harvest information, will be released at the end of January.

[BuckSutherland]

In my area just from talking to people at gas station, bar, resturants, lumberyard it was more like 50% and many shot the only deer they saw.

Area 172.

[NoWiser]

That's interesting. I definitely believe the numbers were down just from the amount of shooting I heard. But, I saw more deer than the past 4 years combined. Although I didn't hunt there, my hunting party did very well in 172. They went 5 for 10 but should have went 8 for 10 with a couple misses and a jammed gun. From the numbers of deer they saw I thought maybe it would go to Hunters Choice next year with a mild winter. Apparently the higher deer numbers aren't unit wide, though. They hunt all public land in the Chippewa National Forest.

Hopefully we get a mild winter here but it sure isn't looking good...

[PurpleFloyd]

Should be lots of big, mature deer running around next year. Hardly any hunters or shots fired in our area, still lots of deer running around and some nice deer we either had on camera and didn't see during the season or saw and didn't harvest. Next year could be epic.

[sticknstring]

Next year could be epic.

Or even worse than this year. Far from epic. The numbers don't surprise me a bit. Keep up the letters to ODN and your legislators. Let our disgruntled voice be heard.

[Wanderer]

I'm surprised we're only 7% off.

From what I've been reading on the forums and hearing from people I know around the state, good deer numbers seem to be in pockets this year more so than ever.

[nonteepical]

Next year could be epic.

An epic failure.

2003 was epic, with 290,000 and an estimated million deer. Ten years later and an estimated million deer (that's what they tell us) and 170,000 harvested. get an epic clue.

[hockeybc69]

+1

[laker1]

Think of it tho,many areas over the years a harvest of 5-7 deer per section is a good harvest. That's maybe 5-7 shots over 16 days. Doesn't take much noise to add up.

Yes I believe 172 is down. Know the area extremely well,and much of the downturn is over harvesting with the zone being two deer many years.

Real deer trails are non existent. Lottery has helped,but maybe should have less doe permits yet. We the hunters cleaned the area out.

That far north with harsh winters etc. the zone should of never been two deer.

Also in many areas traditional wintering yards are gone because of everything logged off the last 20 years(make a difference they don't have coniferous cover anymore?).

[certified jumbo]

As I've posted before.........the best way to improve deer numbers the most is to do bucks only, especially the northern third of mn. At this point we can't keep blasting does and expect deer numbers to rise. There just aren't enough deer to recover.

[Jameson]

just wait. Next year nearly the entire state will be Lottery or Bucks only and the state will blame it 100% on this winter.

[nonteepical]

...and the wind.

[maros91]

It's going to get worse before it gets better.

[muskiemanAD]

As long as the DNR manages the deer herd as a business that they want to maximize the profit on, well we are going to get exactly what we have. I don't have the exact answer but having the deer hunters have a bigger voice in what needs to be done would be a start....

[laker1]

Goals in many areas were set lower because of logging interests,farmers etc.. The advisory boards to set goals on harvest quota's was heavy with forestry interests in the forested zones. Also many on the board sometimes did not know exactly what 10 deer/sq. mile or 20 deer/sq mile meant in real terms. Only one was higher than the other. Like all things it is a starting point,now lets improve it. All areas are different in some degree.

I think after the last few years hunters can have a little more input.

Yes and also the land can produce only so many deer,and still some hunters want more hunters in the woods,how many is enough. Most of the range it is the hunter harvest controls populations.

Yes habitat,winters and wolves also.

[harvey lee]

In my area, seem's it was down about the 7%. I saw as many or more than last year and filled my tags but many had tougher luck.

I am sure the ML season will be down also as this weather is holding many back from going out, least that is what friends are telling me that have ml tags. They say nothing is moving during daylight hours but they are seeing lot's of tracks.

I have a ML tag left and may go out Thurs and Fri when the temps are better. for the 8 times I have been out this ML season, I have seen 1 deer and I could not shoot that one as it was a 3x3 and I need 4 on one side minimum.

I am hunting the ML season in 338.

I would be all for a buck's only season for a few years to see if the herd size increases. I am sure it would in time, even with tougher winters.

[mntatonka]

I'll be more than happy to take my party's tags and take out another couple dozen deer next year in 346, since my neighbors won't do it. It hurts to lose 20% of your corn when it's already a really wet corn year.

[Bear55]

Saw a report somewhere that harvest was down 18% in the NE, I suspect the spring was pretty hard on the deer up north. Kind of felt like they were just coming back in our area and last winter was good up until March and then snow, snow, and more snow at about the worst time possible. Have to start over again hoping for a mild winter but its not looking good so far.

[laker1]

Saw a report somewhere that harvest was down 18% in the NE, I suspect the spring was pretty hard on the deer up north. Kind of felt like they were just coming back in our area and last winter was good up until March and then snow, snow, and more snow at about the worst time possible. Have to start over again hoping for a mild winter but its not looking good so far.

Yes dead deer from starvation were found in some areas.

[Musky Buck]

Fall scouting suggested deer numbers would be down some, the DNR could tell me there's 10 million deer it doesn't matter because were buying a license as long as there's a season, hopefully there will be a few more around next fall, and that's up to mother nature now.

[PurpleFloyd]

Next year could be epic.

[slimngrizzly]

We have some deer around to shoot, our 1 1/2 yr old bucks are replaced by the fawns that survive... whether we kill 150,000 or 300,000 makes no difference to me. They can only manage it "so bad", and IMO were basically at that point.

[fr0sty]

One thing to keep in mind, the deer population isn't solely managed for the benefit of us hunters. They also take into account crop losses for farmer, habitat destruction/carrying capacity as well as deer/vehicle accidents and their associated costs.

The DNR is once again re-evaluating population goals. You can find out more at http://news.dnr.state.mn.us/2013/11/07/dnr-revisiting-deer-population-goals-offers-online-sign-up/

[SmellEsox]

One thing to keep in mind, the deer population isn't solely managed for the benefit of us hunters. They also take into account crop losses for farmer, habitat destruction/carrying capacity as well as deer/vehicle accidents and their associated costs.

The DNR is once again re-evaluating population goals. You can find out more at http://news.dnr.state.mn.us/2013/11/07/dnr-revisiting-deer-population-goals-offers-online-sign-up/

We all know that. But what we'd like is, since hunters fund deer management, maybe they'd cater a little more to the hunter by at least having a population that allows for a more enjoyable hunting experience. A lot of hunters hunted hard and didn't see much. Some areas obviously have good deer numbers. Purple Floyd's never had it better. I've never had it so bad. It'd be nice to raise population goals in a lot of areas that can support more deer.

[leechlake]

purple,

anyone who is basing state wide hunting quality on what their party observed during the year is wrong. That goes both ways though. If you're group had a great year, that's great but irrelevant statistically just as a party of ten who only saw one deer is statistically irrelevant.

What is true is that less deer were killed and that's mainly because deer numbers are down. We've had a deer poplulation of one million for one million years according to the DNR,