Deer Bounce Back from severe winters

[lakevet]

Here is a good read on how deer handle bad winters in Northern Minnesota:

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/volunteer/sepoct09/bounce_back.html

See what it says about deer loss in back to back extremely severe winters (it surprised me). Talking winters with wsi indexes as high as 165!

What age are does at peak fertility? What is doe fertility like after severe winters?

Do wolves do much surplus killing or are they finishing off deer that are just about out of fat reserves and not going to make it anyway?

How fast can deer populations bounce back?

Again it is a good read. Worth reading more than once. It is based on the longest running field study on deer. It follows almost 500 deer for 15 years in North Central Minnesota.

lakevet

[rockman]

Good read. So now the 'snowfall-too much,too soon' thread, can fizzle out, right? The sky is not falling down, where the deer are concerned, from what this study has shown. Or will the doom and gloom crowd keep pounding the drum, even with a study like this from the DNR. We will see.

[fr0sty]

Great read. Thanks.

[laker1]

If you remember 1995-96 was a very very cold and very deep snow and a late spring. State record cold days were set frequently.

So far this is a mild winter compared to that year,except in areas of the state that now have 18 inches plus.

During that study also in 1995-96 90% of the fawns died due to starvation. The 96-97 season it was roughly 50%.

Yes with the right regulation and right winter conditions deer bounce back amazingly fast and they did,but it does take time.

Also one note,during that study they also found out the older does many times were the first to head to the traditional wintering yards.

Sometimes the question may be are we shooting too many of the older does now? Back than harvest of anterless deer harvest was more limited and many 4+ old does were around.

Been in that study area many times. it has now been almost 100% logged of and almost zero conifer cover exists at present.

[BuckSutherland]

Good read. So now the 'snowfall-too much,too soon' thread, can fizzle out, right? The sky is not falling down, where the deer are concerned, from what this study has shown. Or will the doom and gloom crowd keep pounding the drum, even with a study like this from the DNR. We will see.

First off this was written in the Fall of 2009. Since 2009 the wolf population has expanded quite a bit. The overharvest also continued all the way until this was written. Thirdly, the DNR has no adequate way to assess the overall population to begin with.

So what do we have to start this winter?? Confirmed reports from all over northern MN that deer are more than WAY DOWN. Probably at least 1,000 more wolves than 2009. Very severe conditions to end the winter last year. Almost zero fat on the deer taken this fall because there wasnt adequate nutrition all year. Very heavy snow, very little food, very cold temps, no relief in sight, and no idea of what the next 3-5 years will bring.

And I guess I should accept the the word of a wolf-loving study funded by the reactive, not proactive DNR that has had a terrible record of managing the herd since the beginning of time.

WE have far less deer, especially NE MN, than the DNR claims. Now we can expect to throw another 30% mortality on top of that and we shouldnt be concerned?? And who knows what the next five winters bring.

Get a frickin clue rockman and quit believing the DNR propaganda.

[rockman]

DNR bashing in 3,2,1......And the drum pounding continues. Whatever you say, Mr. deer expert, who knows more than the DNR. Why don't you get a clue, and realize that game animals are more resilient than you may know. The study proves it, and just because you don't agree with the study, doesn't disprove it. Just like I've posted in other threads, this isn't 1971, so everyone needs to calm down, and carry on.

[BuckSutherland]

DNR bashing in 3,2,1......And the drum pounding continues. Whatever you say, Mr. deer expert, who knows more than the DNR. Why don't you get a clue, and realize that game animals are more resilient than you may know. The study proves it, and just because you don't agree with the study, doesn't disprove it. Just like I've posted in other threads, this isn't 1971, so everyone needs to calm down, and carry on.

You know what the study proves?

It proves that deer can significantly die off from one bad winter. This makes two in a row, and nobody can guarantee a mild one coming anytime soon. The DNR needs to be proactive and protect the breeding population in hardest hit areas NOW!

Ya know what else it proves??

Wolves eat deer. I will do a little math for you. Since 2009, wolf population has gone way up. It has had such a significant increase that the reactive MN DNR opened a hunting season on them. Deer population has gone way down in the meantime. So with more wolves running around and fewer deer that means the wolves are eating a much larger percentage of deer than ever before. Dont believe me?? Just go ask the moose what happened to their numbers. In fact, you can use your precious DNR stats to back it up.

I guess I draw different conclusions from the article than you guys. Back during this miraculous "rebound" there was not near the wolves, and a couple really good winters were strung together. That four-legged mangeball is wreaking havoc all over the woods in northern MN. Dont take my word for it. Ask the people who have lived there since the beginning of time.

Where I hunt there are a couple guys that are nearing retirement and have lived in the same house their entire lives and worked the same job for the last 40 years. Everyday when they leave to and from work its like a little population assessment. Add in a couple thousand guys from across the state like that and all of a sudden you have more scientific data than the DNR. GO ask my friends from by Red lake or big fork how many deer they are seeing compared to the days of few wolves.

And yes Rockman the deer is a resilient critter, but there is ZERO guarantee of a comfy wolf-free recovery period like this little study boast.

[rockman]

We will just have to agree to disagree. I don't really know where using the example of the decrease in the moose population really has anything to do with the deer study. I deer hunt in NW MN, and saw moose for most of many years I have hunted there. The big game biology professionals, that would be the DNR folks by the way, attributed much of the decrease to tick borne disease, which many hunters already know. I won't deny there is a factor of varying population numbers of these big game animals by predation from wolves, but I am not going to throw out what the professionals already have found out regarding the contributing factor(s) to the decrease of moose numbers. To do so is ignorant. My not liking the numbers decrease is not going to change anything, and especially by bagging on the DNR. I have hunted way too may years to not realize that deer population numbers are cyclic, even with all the factors that contribute to those numbers, and that not one factor is to blame, including the management practices of the DNR. If the deer population hits 1970-71 levels, even with the resiliency of these animals, then the ad nauseum arguements that pop up every year in these threads may have some merit. I guess I am a glass half full kind of person where this is all concerned. Again, we will just have to agree to disagree. Good day.

[lakevet]

Without crusting to walk on top, wolves have to expand extra energy to move also. It would be interesting to know how the wolves went into winter as far as fat reserves.

When I was a kid a few decades ago we were serenaded almost every night on the way out of the woods during deer season. Much quieter in the woods now.

I personally think that weather severity (which we can't control) and quality conifer habitat are the important factors. Wolves have an impact, but when deer population drops, the wolf numbers also drop.

Federal trapper and wolf season seems to have helped balance the wolf population in our little corner of northeast Minnesota. Or the wolves have shifted over a few miles and will return later this winter when the deer hunting where they are now gets tougher. Or we are now situated in a no mans zone between packs. All I know is that there will be deer and wolves and us in the woods next fall!

And the snow cover so far is protecting the cedar we planted this past spring.

lakevet

[SmellEsox]

I guess I'm kind of in-between on this argument. I think the DNR typically underestimates the effects of bad winters. Will they cut way back on antlerless harvest? Go to bucks only for a couple years? Only time will tell.

But I also don't believe that there are 1000 more wolves than just 4 years ago. That is bar room biology at its finest. In fact, with deer and moose numbers down, wolves only have one direction to go and that is down in population numbers. They will track their prey and if the prey is down, their numbers will decline.

I hope DNR does the right thing and start rebuilding numbers. Like the study says, it can be done quickly even with the presence of wolves. The wildcard, like Buck says, is the next couple winters. If they are tough, we will have to get used to lower deer numbers for awhile. If they are mild, the herd will bounce back quickly.

[CANOPY SAM]

I'm not going to presume or assume I know what's going to happen with wildlife this winter. I'm also not going to throw the DNR under the bus, as I personally know several people that work for this agency in several different areas, and I know they do the very best job they can with the resources they have to work with. They are very smart, very dedicated people, but that doesn't make them perfect either. Just like all of us, they are prone to make mistakes too. So please, let's take the petty insults and accusations out of this. It solves nothing.

I grew up as a river fishermen. Since I've been a young frosh I've paid close attention to the weather, as it lends a lot of vital info toward the mood of the fish. It's just become a passion of mine, to watch and follow the weather.

I was in Ada, MN in the spring of 96'-97', and I told many people that winter that we were in for a flood of epic proportions. Most of them laughed at me, but I stuck to my guns. The evidence was there, and it was clearly pointing to what came true later that spring.

Now again, I'm not saying I can see the future, or know what will happen to our deer herd this winter. What I do know is this. Many locations in NW MN are reporting -33 degree temps this morning. That is shockingly cold, and it's pretty darn early in the year to see cold temps, of that severity. The real concern is that we've been seeing subzero temps now for almost 4 weeks, with even daytime high temps that remain deep into the negative numbers. It's not out of the ordinary for us to see a string of subzero temps in January that last many days or even several weeks, but it's pretty unusual to see temps this cold, for this long in December.

There's pretty simple anatomical and physiological laws that animals have to follow to survive in temps like these, and they all include burning a lot more calories to stay warm and alive. Starting winter with weather like this is going to force animals to expend a lot of energy very early in the marathon, and the weather folks are now predicting what looks to be a very long marathon.

It's been very cold, for a very extended period of time, very early in the winter season. I'm not pounding drums, and I'm not soap-boxing. I'm simply saying it's very likely that this winter is going to be hard on wild critters.

The old timers I talk to at church were saying this is no big deal a couple weeks ago. A couple weeks later they are now all changing their stories, and I tend to agree.

[Black Bear]

When our DNR repeatedly issued the "statement" that the winds of opening day/weekend attributed to the significant reduction in deer harvest.......they were 100% wrong. Harvest never did pick up second or third weekend or muzzleloader. Just like they were 100% wrong keeping some areas open to INTENSIVE HARVEST for a year or two or three longer than necessary. I am not a DNR basher but I am getting a little sick and tired of becoming a DNR opologist. They have deer density issues North of Twin Cities. Even Camp Ripley was significantly down this year. Let's face it, allot of 9 month to 13 month old deer died last March, April and May and allot of twin fawns were aborted. I usually no dont agree with BUCKSUTHERLAND much but he makes some very valid points. Yeah deer are resilient, but that is not going to do us any good next year. It will still be bad and judjing by the comments inthe Outdoor News....I'm expecting serious reductions in antlerless permits and a much lower harvest than this years already LOW harvest. I

[Musky Buck]

It all makes some sort of sense, you bet deer numbers dropped to the north/moose also and the wolves moved to the south, Ottertail,Douglas,Todd,Wadena, and Morrison counties certainly why they expanded and established packs in these counties however Douglas is the newcomer. I believe they've expanded westward also anyway bucks only is a comin for lots of spots.

[Bear55]

DNR bashing in 3,2,1......And the drum pounding continues. Whatever you say, Mr. deer expert, who knows more than the DNR. Why don't you get a clue, and realize that game animals are more resilient than you may know. The study proves it, and just because you don't agree with the study, doesn't disprove it. Just like I've posted in other threads, this isn't 1971, so everyone needs to calm down, and carry on.

I will just say that the deer haven't been very resilient since 2008 or so and after last winter the population is down 20%. The article was interesting and probably right on but we also had some amazingly mild winters to, without those winters we won't see that big of a comeback.

"The following winters from 1997-'98 to 1999-2000 were three of the mildest consecutive winters on record. The does in DelGiudice's study responded with fawn production so prolific it surprised him."

[Surface Tension]

One killing winter followed by a easy winter does not make for rebound. It takes years for the numbers to come back. Add another killing winter in there and the numbers drop drastically. If you were around Northern MN the 70's then you know how long its taken to go from 3 deer per sq. mile to 15 deer per sq. mile. It stayed at the low density for most of that time. If it wasn't for many back to back easy winters that could never have happened. You guys in Southern MN had all the deer.

What makes for a killing winter. Look at last year when temp and snow depth started out on the mild side. Then the snows came late and stayed much longer then an average hard winter. In my area the deer took a big hit. No I don't own a helicopter and do aerial surveys nor do I rely on collared deer. I do it by observation 365 days a year with many years of doing so. My time on the deer stand during a two week hunt is only two weeks out of the year of observation. I knew going into the hunt how things were going to be. Wind, rain, snow, and temps don't make deer appear or disappear.

How is this year stacking up for winter kill. Were not off to a good start.

What matters is what happens between now till the snow is gone this Spring. With deep early snow and cold temps, even if the rest of winter is average there is going to be above average winter kill. If we get a late Spring like last year, its not going to look pretty.

This has gone on for centuries and it is needed to keep a deer herd in Northern MN.

While I found the study had some good information and btw I know exactly where this study was done. It doesn't really explain why the increase in deer numbers. Mild winters yes. Don't think anything was said about logging and its benefits for winter browse. FYI logging took off in the 70's and 80's. Yes a downside is clear cuts took out the conifer stands for cover and mature Birch that the Grouse use.

Little was said about wolves and their impact on winter kill. Were lead to think that a wolf kill is a quick single out their prey and its a done deal. It doesn't happen like that. Its an ongoing deal and eventually the prey is weakened by continued stress from chases and or wounding. They'll be back to finish the job in the meantime they move on continue this. So yeah, wolves kill the sick and weak but in reality they are just finishing what they started. So along with winter severity index you have a to add fleeing wolves and the stress and energy consumed off fat reserves of deer that are already on a starvation diet through winter.

Rebounding the herd. Of coarse a rebound will happen sooner with 10 deer per sq. mile then it would with 3 deer per sq mile. If we end up with 3 deer per sq. mile you will find out how long it takes to build those numbers back up. We'll need more then a couple back to back easy winters for that to happen.

On the bright side this snow depth before the frigid temps hit helps out the Ruffed Grouse to roost in. Without that snow we lose a lot of Grouse in these temps.

[MahtowaDave]

Lakevet,

Thanks for the encouraging news. I will take it as a positive and I sure welcome some. Just got back from the hunting shack in Mahtowa. The snow there is unbelievable. I followed a snowmobile track (poor guy abandoned it 3/4 miles down the trail due to slush) most of the way and trekked it the rest to the cabin. Dug out my trail camera from under the snow and left. I had big ideas of what I would be doing up there until I couldnt walk. I did see some deer tracks near the farmers, where there was hay, but that was it. I also didn't see wolf tracks, which was good. Nice to read some positive aspects after what I was seeing. Thank you again, I needed it. Deer and animals, in general, are tougher than we can imagine, and resilient. I am cautiously optimistic, yet I am a realist. Conditions are tough right now in some areas. This winter will take a toll in some areas, Hopefully it will be a minimal loss and we can rebound just as quickly!

[Musky Buck]

Thankful in my ag areas there is enough standing corn, drive HWY210 between Staples and Hewitt and there are hundreds and hundreds of acres left standing, be very careful driving this stretch and those hills after or near dark as there are cow paths beginning to form crossing 210. Really fortunate also that those and other area farmers care about wildlife in general and many many farms and farmers left a lot of corn this year, then again having a bumper crop of corn filled the driers quickly, some might say bumper crop late spring what well it was on the irrigated ground. Sunday/Monday is going to be a bit rough.

[CANOPY SAM]

I think it would be interesting to look at what the statistics show for the TB eradication zone around Beltrami National Forest, and how that herd is "rebounding" after a few years of focused herd reduction/elimination.

I have a few friends who own hunting land and/or cabins inside that zone, and they've been saying the deer numbers are still really, really low. I think the eradication stopped 1 or maybe 2 years ago?

[lakevet]

Lakevet,

Thanks for the encouraging news. I will take it as a positive and I sure welcome some. Just got back from the hunting shack in Mahtowa. The snow there is unbelievable. I followed a snowmobile track (poor guy abandoned it 3/4 miles down the trail due to slush) most of the way and trekked it the rest to the cabin. Dug out my trail camera from under the snow and left. I had big ideas of what I would be doing up there until I couldnt walk. I did see some deer tracks near the farmers, where there was hay, but that was it. I also didn't see wolf tracks, which was good. Nice to read some positive aspects after what I was seeing. Thank you again, I needed it. Deer and animals, in general, are tougher than we can imagine, and resilient. I am cautiously optimistic, yet I am a realist. Conditions are tough right now in some areas. This winter will take a toll in some areas, Hopefully it will be a minimal loss and we can rebound just as quickly!

Would be interesting to get reports from other hunting areas with wolves as to how much activity/deer kills/wolf tracks they personally are seeing. Probably conserving energy like the deer. I suspect there will be some wolf mortality with this weather, especially in areas with high wolf population and low deer population. Also sounds like the cold could whack the emerald ash borer population back quite a bit.

Read a study from a few years ago where Texans tried to transplant our deer from the upper midwest down to Texas to get bigger deer and racks, but our deer couldn't take the heat.

lakevet

[laker1]

They{NW) had the hard winter last year and I think you need at least 3 mild winters to pick up steam.

[MahtowaDave]

Lakevet,

That would be interesting to find out. Funny thing that I have found in my small sample size of land is that the wolves are usually either obviously there, or they are completely absent. Seems to run in cycles. They must have a relatively large range that they travel. Found something similar in Cook Mn. where I spend a week muzzleloader hunting every year. I get a few wolves on the trail cams every year, but it is still much more common to get deer, bear, fisher, bobcats etc. It is this time of year that the wolf pics generally show up on my land, but I don't have any this year due to the fact that the batteries could not tolerate the cold and that the snow covered most of them. Having said that, Where I could walk, I did not see tracks. Usually the snowmobile trail would have wolf tracks on them, but I did not see them, so I assume they are elsewhere at this time. As far as the deer, from everything that I have read, it is of the utmost importance that the deer are able to get food in late March and April as that is a time when their metabolism increases dramatically. If food is unavailable to them at that time, they can run into trouble. Last spring in some places was unrelenting with the late storms, leaving deer behind in the game. Heres to hoping that the deer can get to the food they require in late winter/early spring this year. A moderation in temps in late January and february could help and is entirely possible. Fingers crossed.

[J_D]

I think it would be interesting to look at what the statistics show for the TB eradication zone around Beltrami National Forest, and how that herd is "rebounding" after a few years of focused herd reduction/elimination.

I have a few friends who own hunting land and/or cabins inside that zone, and they've been saying the deer numbers are still really, really low. I think the eradication stopped 1 or maybe 2 years ago?

Deer hunting in the forest last fall was tough, talked to a couple groups out there and it seemed the closer to the ag ground (west or north fridges) the more deer they saw. Lots of wolves out there, its gonna take an easy winter to get that population back. I hunted about 10 miles outside of the forest in zone 101 (tb zone)actually saw quite a few does and fawns.

[certified jumbo]

I don't mind the pessimists. I don't mind the optimists. I don't mind people that look at years past statistics. I prefer to look at what is happening now.

1. Most agree northern deer numbers are down.

2. Most agree wolf numbers are higher.

3. Its a fact that in many areas of northern mn december was in the top 5 coldest decembers ever.

4. Its a fact that in many areas of northern mn december was in the top 5 snowiest decembers ever.

5. Its a fact that the first two weeks of january will be one of coldest ever recorded in mn history.

6. Per weather channel: january and February are forcasted to be significantly colder than normal in all of mn.

I guess I will roll my dice with the facts and what most agree on. Its not shaping up well for the northern half of mn.

That being said, the end of January and February will tell us more............

As an avid NE MN deer hunter, I have concerns.....

[duckster]

Just curious where are you getting the wolve population is up from? Seems that with the wolf harvest of the last two years,tough winters and low deer population the wolves would be down too.

Duckster

[Bear55]

Wolf numbers are probably down from their peak but still much higher than years past. I don't think anyone has a clue what they really are but I do know in the 90's it was pretty rare to see a wolf. Now it's not all that difficult if you spend any time in wolf country.