deer density

[UNDBowhunter]

I agree - that you have to look at carrying capacity and deer density per zone. But when you look at the map of adult deer/hunter - (numbers do not include the additional archery and muzzle loader pressure - Firearms season only) it makes you wonder.

For instance the map of the deer density goals - that is a goal. I would guess that 2013 and in 2014 the deer density is going to be below than the DNR goal in Northern and East Central MN.

So take deer density goals (the actual deer density might be lower than the goal) and firearms pressure (not including archery/muzzy hunting) and you have unbalanced system. I think the red in the adult deer/hunter map shows this.

I think if the DNR sells 500,000 deer license @ $30. I don't think we are getting $15 million worth in deer management.

I think this reflects the maps.

[bowhunternw]

Thanks for posting those maps,good info there.

[LandDr]

Nice maps...easy to read...but not sure I understand the goal.

In summary, this is what the maps show for the area I hunt in (central MN)...

6-9 hunters

4-8 deer

0-1 adult deer

So...if I am ready that correctly...there are 6-9 hunters chasing 4-8 deer of which 0-1 are adults.

Wow...what kind of goal is that?

A goal that most likely half the hunters will not get a deer?

A goal that most likely there will not be even 1 adult deer?

Maybe I am reading it wrong, but this is ridiculous to me. My kids would fall asleep in the stand cuz they would never even see a deer. They would lose interest and stop hunting. Better see more deer or hunter recruitment goes out the door.

Luckily I don't buy into that and I have a lot of deer on my property due to the habitat and food development.

[smsmith]

A goal that most likely half the hunters will not get a deer?

Hunter success rates are below 40% in MN and have been for a good number of years.

I hear what you're saying about habitat development on your own chunk of heaven. However, if we want our hunting traditions to continue, we have to make sure those folks who don't own land (i.e. the majority of hunters) continue to remain in the sport. Pretty tough to keep a kid or new hunter interested when they experience the kind of hunting many areas of MN has right now.

[lichen fox]

In our area, the goal is 0 - 4 deer per square mile and the "deer per hunter" goal is 1 adult deer per hunter...

[T_arola]

This does not reflect archery and muzzleloader hunters also. Pretty interesting to see goals vs firearm hunter density = deer goals sq mi/hunter sq mi. "May the odds be in your favor" - not for the MN Deer!!!

Here are the maps

[mntatonka]

In our area, the goal is 0 - 4 deer per square mile and the "deer per hunter" goal is 1 adult deer per hunter...

sounds like a good goal, assuming that's what the habitat can sustain. If you look at most of Zone 3, it's also 1 deer per hunter, but that's at 15-20 deer per square mile, which is about what the habitat can sustain on average.

[T_arola]

I will say this again -

I agree - that you have to look at carrying capacity and deer density per zone. But when you look at the map of adult deer/hunter - (numbers do not include the additional archery and muzzle loader pressure - Firearms season only) it makes you wonder.

For instance the map of the deer density goals - that is a goal. I would guess that 2013 and in 2014 the deer density is going to be below than the DNR goal in Northern and East Central MN.

So take deer density goals (the actual deer density might be lower than the goal) and firearms pressure (not including archery/muzzy hunting) and you have unbalanced system. I think the red in the adult deer/hunter map shows this.

I think if the DNR sells 500,000 deer license @ $30. I don't think we are getting $15 million worth in deer management.

[smsmith]

Total deer license/tag revenue in 2012 was over $18 million

[mntatonka]

I will say this again -

I agree - that you have to look at carrying capacity and deer density per zone. But when you look at the map of adult deer/hunter - (numbers do not include the additional archery and muzzle loader pressure - Firearms season only) it makes you wonder.

For instance the map of the deer density goals - that is a goal. I would guess that 2013 and in 2014 the deer density is going to be below than the DNR goal in Northern and East Central MN.

So take deer density goals (the actual deer density might be lower than the goal) and firearms pressure (not including archery/muzzy hunting) and you have unbalanced system. I think the red in the adult deer/hunter map shows this.

I think if the DNR sells 500,000 deer license @ $30. I don't think we are getting $15 million worth in deer management.

6.5%. That's the number of hunters that only hunt archery. 1.35% is the number that only bought Muzzleloader licenses. That means that 92% of hunters are firearms hunters, so statistically they're all that matters. Adding them to the map wouldn't change the numbers

I agree that you're not getting 15mil in deer management. Of course, not all of that $30 goes to actual management. I'm guessing there's a considerable percentage that goes to enforcement, another percentage that goes into the general fund, a large percentage that goes towards upkeep on public/state lands, and on and on.

[hockeybc69]

Here are the revenues from Deer Hunting license sales.

Dont think for a second that all this money goes into Deer management...

“If we can manage more for the middle of that swing, we’re going to find hunters are happier overall and license sales are higher overall,” Johnson said. “I hate to point out that it’s a numbers game. Deer licenses are the primary revenue generator for the DNR. Keeping on top of management and keeping hunters happy is paramount to the DNR having a good cash flow.”

[smsmith]

6.5%. That's the number of hunters that only hunt archery. 1.35% is the number that only bought Muzzleloader licenses. That means that 92% of hunters are firearms hunters, so statistically they're all that matters. Adding them to the map wouldn't change the numbers

108,000+ archery hunters and 58,000+ muzzleloaders isn't statistically insignificant when considering their impact on the deer herd.

[T_arola]

If I do my math correctly (looking just at the State of MN)

79,626.74 sq mi is State of MN - US CENSUS http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/27000.html

166,000 bow and muzzy hunters/79,626.74 = 2.08 bow and muzzy hunters/sq mi

[mntatonka]

If I do my math correctly (looking just at the State of MN)

79,626.74 sq mi is State of MN - US CENSUS http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/27000.html

166,000 bow and muzzy hunters/79,626.74 = 2.08 bow and muzzy hunters/sq mi

And 92% of those are also firearms hunters, which are included in these maps. So it's actually only .5 bow/muzzy hunters per square mile.

[smsmith]

79,626.74 sq mi is State of MN - US CENSUS http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/27000.html

I assume this figure is land area - lakes and rivers. There'd be a fair number of acres that are roads, cities, etc. that would still have to be subtracted to get down to acres of land that could hold a deer.

[smsmith]

And 92% of those are also firearms hunters,

Not questioning you, but could you point to where you found that statistic?

[PurpleFloyd]

So maybe the DNR needs to start a stocking program like they do with Walleyes where they raise them in a pen and release them so we can harvest more than the land can hold and sustain on it's own. They can take deer with the best genetics and use them as breeding stock.

[smsmith]

So maybe the DNR needs to start a stocking program like they do with Walleyes where they raise them in a pen and release them so we can harvest more than the land can hold and sustain on it's own. They can take deer with the best genetics and use them as breeding stock.

I'd prefer a drastic reduction in antlerless tag allocation for a few years, but hey....to each their own

[LandDr]

If reducing the anterless tags results in more deer, but the land has a low carrying capacity...then the deer are stressed even though there are more deer.

Releasing deer into low carrying capacity land leads to the same...not going to happen but just for discussion since it was brought up.

Or...increase the carrying capacity of the land to allow "natural" increases in the deer population?

My observation again is that almost all State and Federal land has a VERY LOW carrying capacity for resident wildlife such as deer and pheasants. If you want to see more deer and pheasants and healthier populations, the design philosophies have to change. I don't see that changing without A LOT of pressure.

For example...a certain group bought some land and is donating it to the DNR. 100% of it is being planted to native prairie. No winter cover planned in and no food planned in. What do you think the carrying capacity of that property is for deer and pheasants?

Take that same property and build in two or three shrub\conifer plantings protecting two or three food plots and the rest in native prairie. Now what do you think the carrying capacity is?

If you want 4-8 deer and 5-10 pheasants...go with example one. If you want 10-20 deer and 50-75 pheasants...go with example two. This isn't rocket science...but example two is not what is happening. Whether you look at management in ag country of management in our forests, increasing carrying capacities for "game species" is not happening.

[mntatonka]

Not questioning you, but could you point to where you found that statistic?

right in the harvest report

[smsmith]

Whether you look at management in ag country of management in our forests, increasing carrying capacities for "game species" is not happening.

Agree 100% with that...yet 62% of the $31 million dollars in the MN DNR's Wildlife Expenditure's budget goes to habitat management. That's a lot of money. Too bad the DNR has decided to spend most of it on things that don't benefit the major source of that income....DEER HUNTERS

[LandDr]

They are doing habitat management...but they are doing habitat management for non-game species. There is a huge push for "restoring"...restoring the prairie landscapes to how they once were and restoring the forests to how they once were. This doesn't do much for pheasants and deer.

I am not sure how much if any of that $13 million you mentioned might have gone into all of the grazing of WMAs...but how much cover is out there this winter for pheasants and deer? Try surviving a winter on that! But the drum is beating loudly for high diversity prairies and the management for these...this plan does not include woody cover and food plots. If this type of management continues, MN pheasant and deer populations will always be marginal on public land...it will be the few private landowners that maximize their carrying capacities for deer and pheasants that will have the game.

If you want the management philosophies on public land to change, then you need to let them know loudly and call them on what they are currently doing...ask the tough questions and make the tough statements.

[smsmith]

...ask the tough questions and make the tough statements.

Exactly the process that has begun.

[hockeybc69]

Can anyone find any information on habitat loss or destruction due to too many deer in the past at any point in the last several years?

I have googled and cannot find anything, even back in the 2003 era when harvests were at record levels and population estimates were high.

I don't disagree that habitat improvement is a great idea. But why is habitat improvement over what we have today required to bump up populations in areas that are being managed so low now?

[LandDr]

Calling the DNR or groups and asking the tough questions usually ends up in political statements and lip service. Get the media involved...Dennis Anderson, Outdoor News, Outdoors Weekly, etc. Email and media to the legislators also. It's A LOT of work...but that is about the only way change will happen. Otherwise they will just keep doing what they are doing.

I know this is a deer forum, but why is a pheasant group buying land just to put into prairie where all of the hens die through the winter? "Dead hens don't lay eggs"...all that prairie nesting cover is for nothing when you can't even get the dang hen through the winter! I would recommend everyone to take a close look at who you are supporting with your donations. That will put some pressure on them as well.