Gun numbers from DNR

[mntatonka]

I'm ignorant, so bear with me. How do you know it is deer eating the tops? Are there other animals that would eat the tops? Rabbits? Woodchucks? Some other rodent? Pocket gophers? Could the small field be fenced to keep deer out? I saw guys protecting soybean food plots out in the middle of the woods with electric fence and it worked. Is that cost prohibitive? Just my curiosity. Don't get mad.

Massive amounts of deer tracks are certainly a good indicator. Takes a heck of an electric fence to keep a deer out.

[Jameson]

maybe then they shouldn't have cows. Maybe sheep are more suited for their land.

Sounds like they are trying to fit a round peg into a square hole.

[rockman]

What is this, armchair quarterback the farmer day, at HSO? Really? How did this thread go from deer harvest numbers for this year, to ripping on the DNR, then to questioning the farmer? Does any one group have to be focus of frustration for anyone that didn't see enough deer this season? If any one person didn't see enough deer this season, oh, well, that's hunting, folks. This isn't 1971 all over again, so I don't see what all the whining is about. And to minimize crop depredation as a significant part of deer management by the DNR, as is being done in this thread, is ignorant.

[Jameson]

What is this, armchair quarterback the farmer day,...

Sounded like someone else was having a problem and I was offering some solutions. If they don't like them that is fine. I wasn't saying they were doing anything wrong. They are the ones complaining. Sorry for trying to help.

[swamptiger]

Amazing how the deer numbers can vary so much from one end of the state to the other. I'm in Zone 1 in the north central part of the state, and I don't believe I've ever seen deer numbers so low in my area in 45 years of hunting. They were actually starting to recover a little last year, but I think the late heavy snow really did a number on the herd this spring. Next year, I'll do my part by not buying a license.

[rockman]

Sorry, Jameson. My reply was directed at the complainers, not your reply.

[laker1]

I complain as much as anybody,but in reality the last decade has been awesome as far as deer hunting go and can't get much better.

In much of the state if over 33-40% of hunters get a deer it will probably lead to over-harvest, and over the years it kind of been that way.

Yes now fast forward,we have over harvested in areas with a lot of public land like 172. Now it is time to become a little more restrictive.

I think in many cases people want it easy and some after about two days had enough. That is just better for me.

Looking forward when individual area results are posted.

[swamptiger]

Just goes to show the forest zones and the farming zones are two different worlds, and you can't apply the same formula for both. Same goes for trapping regs, wolf management, wetlands management, etc., etc....

[Bear55]

Just goes to show the forest zones and the farming zones are two different worlds, and you can't apply the same formula for both.

Yep think you hit the nail on the head, when the population was booming I think the DNR got a little careless with the extra tags up north. By the time they realized what was happening it was too late. The first year we went lotto in our area they gave out 500 doe tags, even with party hunting the entire area only filled 231 doe tags. Hoping that was a big eye opener. Been 100-200 doe tags ever since, numbers are coming back slowly but there are always the wolves and a few hard winters that keep knocking them back.

[Jameson]

...The first year we went lotto in our area they gave out 500 doe tags, even with party hunting the entire area only filled 231 doe tags. ...

Question: How does that compare to other lottery areas? My thought is that in lottery areas we only get to use our main tags and many people with a doe tag shot a buck. Sure party hunting may off set things a little, but it would in all areas. So maybe only having half the doe tags filled is normal. Anyone know?

[walleye18]

question for the group....do you believe the DNR numbers?

Given the lack of trust with the government and DNR...do we really trust the numbers they provide?

I mean, in 1989 the state said there was 2000 wolves in MN. A fews years ago they said the population was a "tad" over 2000. Really?

Just a thought....

[mntatonka]

question for the group....do you believe the DNR numbers?

Given the lack of trust with the government and DNR...do we really trust the numbers they provide?

I mean, in 1989 the state said there was 2000 wolves in MN. A fews years ago they said the population was a "tad" over 2000. Really?

Just a thought....

The population numbers, no. Although they don't have a choice but to go off the data they can get, and most that data is the harvest numbers.

The harvest numbers I believe somewhat, but there's definitely a large margin of error in them as well.

[Bear55]

I believe the DNR is doing their best but No they don't really know how close they are to the real numbers. It might also be possible they might know more but don't want to alarm hunters with truth.

[Jameson]

question for the group....do you believe the DNR numbers?

Simple data like harvest numbers, yes.

Reports, percentages, summaries, etc......NO! They manipulate the data to show what they want.

[leechlake]

I'm sure the DNR has a paid statistician or two on the staff. Those people, by trade, would use statistically modeling for a variety of things. They'd take into consideration the % of people who don't register deer for example and figure it into the numbers.

If the DNR followed the statisticians they would give an error rate like +/- 3% for any information that the DNR sent out for publication. Since they don't do that I don't trust their data. I'm not asking for anything super confusing but even basic political polls show a margin of error percentage rate. The more data used then usually the margin of error is lower.

[mntatonka]

I'm sure the DNR has a paid statistician or two on the staff. Those people, by trade, would use statistically modeling for a variety of things. They'd take into consideration the % of people who don't register deer for example and figure it into the numbers.

If the DNR followed the statisticians they would give an error rate like +/- 3% for any information that the DNR sent out for publication. Since they don't do that I don't trust their data. I'm not asking for anything super confusing but even basic political polls show a margin of error percentage rate. The more data used then usually the margin of error is lower.

As far as I know, Lou is the statistician. I know he's got a strong background in it anyway. I expect there's too many variables to give a +/- in their calculations. Between winters, predators, mis-registered animals, unregistered animals, poaching, vehicle kills, disease, and every other way a deer can die, it's impossible to be even remotely accurate on population.

[Musky Buck]

For many of us we don't care a lick what the DNR says the numbers are, we just drive around the section with binoculars and check our trail cams, it doesn't make us say well were not buying a license this year. If you couldn't figure out our numbers are down a person shouldn't need anyone telling us that we know that. Last years harvest lets say well it wasn't really high so I'd assume the year after it wouldn't be much higher especially with the spring we had and the wolf numbers we have. There are so many hunters that are so thankfully clueless when it comes to hunting and stand placement etc. Biggest bellyacher in our neighborhood blaming the dnr has a 40 acre alfalfa field, he drives his 4x4 truck every morning to his box field stand and parks right by it well guess what he rarely sees deer and blames the dnr, well many openers and days after I have to make that right turn and my headlights hit that field and it tends to always have deer in it, but if you're that lazy you can't circle behind that field on foot and slip into your stand it's the DNR's fault, 3 years ago he had a monster buck with a doe bedded 30 feet from his stand, of course he wasn't in it, I thought the rack was brush. Hunt smarter is the message to some, put time in especially with lower goat numbers, have a secondary spot/ladder stand to use here and there, don't think great opener weekend is done so I'm done, blame the dnr for your lack of success. With a topic like this we can't decipher who hunts hard, who hunts maybe just opening weekend, who could muzzleload but they choose not to even though the deer are out night after night now in legal light, who just won't leave the comforts of their heated box stand so it's got to happen there or nowhere. Some need to try to find permission closer to home for a secondary option as hard as that is to get, but it happens. Who had tremendous success and filled mega tags and now times are tough so it's the dnr, when times are great leave some for seed, if you're in a 5 tag area maybe get 2 tags, not 5. There's a lot of variables lots, you can always quit, sell your land, ending your frustrations. I don't get this country, it's all turning into a constant blame game on every topic point the finger at others, be thankful we can even hunt, be thankful cwd seems in check, that EBT hasn't found us yet, we almost couldn't have had a better time to have low numbers of deer in much of the state with that EBT in surrounding states. I also agree it's time to manage for more deer again but are people ready to sustain for a few years like hunters choice or bucks only or something to help it get there ?

[Jameson]

[Jameson]

A square mile is 640 acres. That is sixteen 40 acre tracts. If you hunt on a 40 in a 10 dpsm area you might not have a deer on your 40.

[rockman]

Well put, Musky Buck. My area has had hunter's choice for the last 3 out of 4 years. Last year was lottery. I still filled a tag each year, and had to work a bit more to do so. The does are coming back from slightly lower #'s than a few years back, but the deer never totally disappeared. And the cycle of lower deer numbers weren't even close to 1971 levels. DNR did their job, and #'s are on an upswing. Game population numbers are cyclic- grouse,pheasants, deer,bear,you name it. Numbers will fluctuate within that cycle. Even with all the environmental factors that influence the game populations. It is what it is.

As far as distrusting the DNR and their #'s, well, I make a little bit of an effort not to wear the tin foil hat, and look for the black helicopters to show up. Just sayin'.

[Wanderer]

Exactly.

Also, in some of those areas, what's the hunter density per square mile? That could be a point of discussion about how many tags are issued - not just antlerless.

[Jameson]

...what's the hunter density per square mile? That could be a point of discussion about how many tags are issued - not just antlerless.

I believe people are working on that map.

[swamptiger]

Quote:

A square mile is 640 acres. That is sixteen 40 acre tracts. If you hunt on a 40 in a 10 dpsm area you might not have a deer on your 40.

Or there might be 10 deer on two of the forties, and nothing on the other 14. That's basically what I'm seeing. There's a lot of public land where I live, and I have more deer around my yard than there is on the public land. The further out in the woods you go, the less deer sign you will see.

[Jameson]

Or there might be 10 deer on two of the forties, and nothing on the other 14. That's basically what I'm seeing. There's a lot of public land where I live, and I have more deer around my yard than there is on the public land. The further out in the woods you go, the less deer sign you will see.

Interesting observation on the public vs private. Are the deer around your yard hunted? Many people are observing the opposite lately. More deer on large tracts of public land vs. the fragmented private land. Private lands will actually have more hunters in many cases.

[hockeybc69]

You can get hunter density in here on page 7.

http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/recreation/hunting/deer/2012_harvest_total.pdf

No DNR maps available with those numbers unfortuneately.