DNR aim is satisfied deer hunters, healthy deer herd

[DonBo]

Quote:

(Released January 10, 2014)

As a long-time Minnesota hunter and wildlife manager, Paul Telander has witnessed the ups and downs of Minnesota’s deer population.

As a hunter, he remembers when the season was closed in 1971 because deer numbers were precariously low. As a wildlife manager in northwestern Minnesota, he helped rebuild the herd that eventually led to a record harvest in 2003 of 290,000 deer.

Now as the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources’ wildlife section chief and at a time in Minnesota’s history when the deer population is neither particularly high nor low, Telander answers questions about Minnesota’s deer population.

What is the DNR’s deer management goal?

Our goal is to provide a healthy, sustainable and abundant deer population. In practice, that means having a deer herd that creates satisfied hunters, provides good hunting and minimizes unwanted consequences for wildlife habitat, people and deer themselves. Our management approach factors in habitat and the impacts deer have on it, disease, land management and the desires of all Minnesotans.

Are you meeting with deer hunters about deer population?

Yes. In fact, deer management will be discussed at length at the annual wildlife roundtable, and we’ll be having additional discussions with deer hunters at both the state and local levels. It’s a timely topic.

How would you characterize this past deer hunting season?

The 2013 deer season harvest of 171,000-plus animals is a solid number, but the lowest since 1998 and the third consecutive year of decline. Part of the reason for the decline in harvest the past few years was the restricted harvest of antlerless deer through more lottery areas and fewer intensive and managed deer areas that we have used in an attempt to allow populations to stabilize or rebuild in many parts of the state.

What’s planned for 2014?

We have not yet made decisions on the 2014 deer season, but we have heard the concerns of hunters from many areas of the state and will make adjustments based on sound science and current conditions. We realize last winter was unusually hard on deer in northern Minnesota, resulting in more mortality and reduction in fawn production than expected. This winter’s weather will likely produce more negative effects on both fawn and adult mortality as well as fawn production, especially if bitter cold and deep snow conditions continue into spring.

Does that mean you expect antlerless permit numbers to decline?

Deer harvest results from 2013 and other factors will weigh into our antlerless permit and season structure decisions. Though the harvest analysis will not be complete until spring, it’s likely that antlerless permit numbers will be decreased in certain areas and deer permit area designations designed to reduce harvest will be expanded. This approach will help stabilize or build deer populations where needed.

How did last year’s hunting season compare to others?

Perspective-wise, the 2013 deer harvest was well above the average harvest of the 1980s, just slightly below the average harvest of the 1990s but considerably lower than the average harvest of 2000-2010. The average harvest from 2000-2010 was about 240,000. Those years represent the highest deer harvests in history. The record deer populations that produced those harvests were the source of unwanted problems for people, the land, and deer themselves.

When were deer population goals set?

As you may recall, between 2005 and 2007 the DNR used a public participation process to evaluate and adjust population goals for deer permit areas across the state. During the process, regional stakeholder teams were formed consisting mostly of hunters, but including foresters, farmers, private industry, landowners, conservation organizations, and tribal representatives. Teams met and gave input to the DNR on deer populations and trends. The DNR then solicited additional public input via an online presentation and questionnaire before finalizing the goals.

How were goals set; what was the outcome?

Various factors were considered in setting the goals, including habitat quality and food resources; the recreational, economic and social value of deer in Minnesota; deer vehicle collisions; agricultural damage; browsing impacts on native plant communities and other wildlife species; deer disease and health concerns; and historic deer population and harvest trends. The 2005 process occurred at a time when deer densities in much of the state were at the highest point on record. Most participants agreed the statewide population should be managed downward, and deer population goals were reduced in many deer permit areas.

So you are going to look at deer population goals again?

Yes. Now that goals have been in place for a number of years, we are committed to re-evaluating the goals that resulted from that process. Meantime, we will continue to annually evaluate the impacts of various factors on deer populations and adjust management accordingly. Depending on the effects of this winter and the analysis next spring, management changes that we could consider as early as the 2014 season would include adjustments to antlerless quotas, creating additional lottery or hunter’s choice areas, or even establishing bucks-only permit areas if needed to manage low deer populations.

Where are you in the goal-setting process?

Population goals have already been re-evaluated in southwestern and parts of northern Minnesota using a similar process to that used in 2005-2007. Southeastern Minnesota permit area goals will be re-evaluated in the coming year using a revised process. We anticipate the remainder of the state will be completed in 2015 and 2016.

Anything else?

As I mentioned earlier, our aim is satisfied hunters, good hunting and minimal unwanted consequences for wildlife habitat, people, and deer themselves. That’s the target. We’ are committed to working with hunters and others to hit it.

To hear more about deer management from Paul Telander, visit www.mndnr.gov.

[laker1]

I think they are very sincere. Let them know your concerns. Better there than on this blog.

[minky]

Good point!

[smsmith]

I think they are very sincere. Let them know your concerns. Better there than on this blog.

You're kidding...right? No hunter satisfaction surveys anywhere outside SE or SW MN since '05. Commissioner Landwehr recommended fewer antlerless tags be issued and fewer Managed and Intensive units....and the DNR responded with more of each.

Yeah...they are really interested in hunter satisfaction

[PurpleFloyd]

You're kidding...right? No hunter satisfaction surveys anywhere outside SE or SW MN since '05. Commissioner Landwehr recommended fewer antlerless tags be issued and fewer Managed and Intensive units....and the DNR responded with more of each.

Yeah...they are really interested in hunter satisfaction

I see your point but satisfaction surveys are only as good as the questions they ask. If you are going to do a survey and the questions are

- Do you want to shoot bigger deer

- Do you want to see more deer

Then you really aren't doing any service to the cause. You could just as well ask

-Would you like to have a beer keg in your stand

-Would you like to have the bikini ice girls as your cabin maids.

Sure, who wouldn't, right?

[smsmith]

I see your point but satisfaction surveys are only as good as the questions they ask. If you are going to do a survey and the questions are

- Do you want to shoot bigger deer

- Do you want to see more deer

Then you really aren't doing any service to the cause. You could just as well ask

-Would you like to have a beer keg in your stand

-Would you like to have the bikini ice girls as your cabin maids.

Sure, who wouldn't, right?

You're correct, but the point is that the MN DNR is saying their goal is to keep hunters satisfied and to have a healthy herd. If that is indeed the goal...wouldn't it be a good idea to ask hunters about their level of satisfaction?

In '05 hunter satisfaction surveys indicated about 70% of hunters were satisfied with the number of deer they were seeing. I'd like to see the DNR use that exact same survey (for consistency) now and report what they find. The '05 surveys were used to reduce the herd. The '14 surveys should be done and the results used to help guide herd decisions.

[Jameson]

What were the last hunter satisfaction survey questions word-for-word?

[smsmith]

What were the last hunter satisfaction survey questions word-for-word?

Don't have that at my fingertips...I'll see if I can get it

[mntatonka]

http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/recreation/hunting/deer/2005huntersurvey_fulldoc.pdf

[PurpleFloyd]

In '05 hunter satisfaction surveys indicated about 70% of hunters were satisfied with the number of deer they were seeing.

Well, that is an interesting situation. In 2005 hunters were satisfied with the numbers of deer they were seeing and satisfied with the hunting but they were taking deer at levels that led to what we have today. If,in that survey they would have stated "Do you approve of sustaining the current level of harvest if it means in the next decade the population will decline to the point you may not have a chance to harvest any deer in the future" then the results may have been different.

To that end,when you ask hunters if they want to see more deer without any qualifiers you will get a high percentage saying yes.But if you actually want to reduce the deer kill in order to increase the density, then ask them " Are you willing to go one, two or three consecutive years without harvesting a deer in order to facilitate an increase in the deer herd which may increase your chances in the future?"

[laker1]

Some place hunters are going to have to realize only about 40% of hunters are going to get a deer and that is a good harvest year.

[Jameson]

http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/recreation/hunting/deer/2005huntersurvey_fulldoc.pdf

The old survey starts on page 55.

[PurpleFloyd]

Some place hunters are going to have to realize only about 40% of hunters are going to get a deer and that is a good harvest year.

Yeah, and to that end honesty is the best policy and we have to be honest with other hunters when we make proposals and not falsely lead them to believe things that are not supported by biology and science.

For instance, we have been hearing for some time from a certain contingent that the way to a healthy, balanced herd is by letting the young bucks walk and filling the freezer with does and the wall with the big ones that result from shooting does vs. young bucks. Now we see the impact of harvesting too many does in a declining herd that reduces not only the does, but the yearling and mature bucks as well.What that means is to build the population we will be required to take fewer deer of all ages and sexes and to sustain it we will need to take fewer of all ages of deer to prevent the boom/bust cycles we see now in pretty much all species from deer to upland birds to fish and work on improving habitat.

[Jameson]

...For instance, we have been hearing for some time from a certain contingent that the way to a healthy, balanced herd is by letting the young bucks walk and filling the freezer with does and the wall with the big ones that result from shooting does vs. young bucks. Now we see the impact of harvesting too many does in a declining herd that reduces not only the does, but the yearling and mature bucks as well.What that means is to build the population we will be required to take fewer deer of all ages and sexes and to sustain it we will need to take fewer of all ages of deer to prevent the boom/bust cycles we see now in pretty much all species from deer to upland birds to fish and work on improving habitat.

There you go again. Name the person or contingent. It sounds like you are speaking of the QDMA and their moto of "proper doe harvest." A moto that has been taken too far by non-QDMA folks. It is not the QDMA's fault.

But agree with you that we will need to take fewer deer in the future to prevent the boom/bust cycle, AND the need to work on habitat.

*I am not a member of QDMA. Not a fan of their APR stance, but they do teach some good habitat stuff.

[harvey lee]

The DNR will never come up with any prgram to satisfy all.

Can't happen.

[smsmith]

The DNR will never come up with any prgram to satisfy all.

Can't happen.

Absolutely true. However, at one point the DNR's own surveys indicated that 70%+ of deer hunters were somewhat to very satisfied with the numbers of deer they were seeing. I'd think if we could get that number back to 55%+ it would be a good idea. Deer hunters do pay $18 million+ for a multitude of programs. Wouldn't it make sense to keep at least the majority of us "satisfied"?

[BLACKJACK]

The DNR will never come up with any prgram to satisfy all.

Can't happen.

+1

Big deer, lots of deer, it doesn't matter to me anymore, I just enjoy the challenge of going after them, I enjoy the process of getting myself in the right spot to see and hopefully harvest a deer, I think about deer hunting everytime I'm out hiking, pheasant hunting, bird watching, etc., looking for deer sign, planning next years hunt. Enjoy the process and the results will speak for themselves.

All this haggling about big antlers and deer densities gets old. Enjoy the process and the beautiful fall days and time with friends.

[PurpleFloyd]

+1

Big deer, lots of deer, it doesn't matter to me anymore, I just enjoy the challenge of going after them, I enjoy the process of getting myself in the right spot to see and hopefully harvest a deer, I think about deer hunting everytime I'm out hiking, pheasant hunting, bird watching, etc., looking for deer sign, planning next years hunt. Enjoy the process and the results will speak for themselves.

All this haggling about big antlers and deer densities gets old. Enjoy the process and the beautiful fall days and time with friends.

+1.

[smsmith]

Big deer, lots of deer, it doesn't matter to me anymore, I just enjoy the challenge of going after them, I enjoy the process of getting myself in the right spot to see and hopefully harvest a deer, I think about deer hunting everytime I'm out hiking, pheasant hunting, bird watching, etc., looking for deer sign, planning next years hunt. Enjoy the process and the results will speak for themselves.

All this haggling about big antlers and deer densities gets old. Enjoy the process and the beautiful fall days and time with friends.

This is perfectly fine...for you. If you are satisfied with what you have and feel no need to engage in/follow current hot button topics regarding deer in the State of MN..that is just fine...for you. However, does that then mean it is "wrong" for those of us who find the quality of the hunt here to be unnecessarily sub par to attempt to make changes for what we consider to be better?

I am seriously concerned about the future of deer hunting in this state. Its already tough to get a kid to go outside and leave the Xbox alone. If they see nothing for 9 days...how do you keep them from hanging up the rifle/bow permanently? We don't need a deer behind every tree. We do need to increase the deer herd to the point where we consistently harvest 200-220K deer annually.