WHY

[walleyehunter80]

why is the thread about deer population locked? I wanted to respond!

[walleyehunter80]

There is too much habitat getting taken away in southern Minnesota. We need to reduce hunting pressure or bring the habitat up to sustain it! Right now public lands are a joke for 75% of the deer season (I hunt all private land). Peoples groves around their houses hold more deer than public hunting lands do.

I would like the DNR to do a survey on how many hunters south of State HWY 94/10 hunt public land and how many hunt private land.

There is a huge problem with how our state handles the licenses and permits. They should take a page out of the turkey success book. I honestly believe not everyone should be able to hunt in Minnesota (including myself and my family) each year. No more over the counter licenses!

[smsmith]

why is the thread about deer population locked? I wanted to respond!

Good question.....

[Todd Caswell]

There is too much habitat getting taken away in southern Minnesota. We need to reduce hunting pressure or bring the habitat up to sustain it! Right now public lands are a joke for 75% of the deer season (I hunt all private land). Peoples groves around their houses hold more deer than public hunting lands do.

I would like the DNR to do a survey on how many hunters south of State HWY 94/10 hunt public land and how many hunt private land.

There is a huge problem with how our state handles the licenses and permits. They should take a page out of the turkey success book. I honestly believe not everyone should be able to hunt in Minnesota (including myself and my family) each year. No more over the counter licenses!

Good luck with that one, trying to completly change a system that has been in place for EVER??? Yah right, and why?? Didn't realize we had a deer shortage.

[smsmith]

Didn't realize we had a deer shortage.

Really? The 44%+ reduction of the deer kill in the last decade didn't strike you as being one possibility?

[Todd Caswell]

Quote:

Really? The 44%+ reduction of the deer kill in the last decade didn't strike you as being one possibility?

Did it ever occur to you that earlier in the decade when almost all areas were either management, or intensive harvest that maybe we had too many deer?

[mntatonka]

Todd, that hasn't occurred to most people that are complaining about low deer numbers. We've all gotten so complacent and lazy having so many deer over the past decade, that now we are all made have to do a little work to shoot a deer

[smsmith]

Did it ever occur to you that earlier in the decade when almost all areas were either management, or intensive harvest that maybe we had too many deer?

44% too many? Okay...some areas were supposed to be reduced by 25%.

Which unit do you hunt?

[smsmith]

Todd, that hasn't occurred to most people that are complaining about low deer numbers. We've all gotten so complacent and lazy having so many deer over the past decade, that now we are all made have to do a little work to shoot a deer

I'll ask you the same question I asked Todd...what unit do you hunt?

[mntatonka]

I deer hunt 346 and bear hunt 156, where I have close friends that live and deer hunt.

[BuckSutherland]

Did it ever occur to you that earlier in the decade when almost all areas were either management, or intensive harvest that maybe we had too many deer?

Then we should have taken the same approach as they take to the stupid wolf. Once there is too many deer they would die off in areas where there are too many. Just like once there are too many wolves they will die from manage and lack of food. The population was just fine for thousands of years until our govt biologist and legislature blanked it all up. Its pretty obvious the much higher populations were sustainable otherwise they would have been dying all over the state, and that wasnt the case.

[minky]

I wouldn't mind some changes to the deer season but I would really miss deer hunting if I could not go every year!

Would getting rid of party hunting help deer numbers?

If that happened I would be OK with only being able to get one deer a year(this I got 2).

[mntatonka]

Minky, cross tagging if bucks is already illegal in zone 3, and the population is dropping there as well. So no, getting rid of party hunting will not fix the problem except int he fact that we will lose hunters, and harvest less deer because of that fact

[smsmith]

I deer hunt 346 and bear hunt 156, where I have close friends that live and deer hunt.

Thank you for sharing that info. Unit 346 had 16 dpsm (pre fawn) at the beginning of this year according to the DNR. Historically it has ranged from 21 in 2008 to the current 16.

16 is far from a "lot" of deer, but it is 6 more per sq. mile (pre fawn) than I'm currently dealing with. If half those deer are does, that would mean another 6(ish) dpsm come hunting time. So..in a unit with 16 dpsm pre fawn you'd be looking at another 12 dpsm (conservatively given the fact MN harvests more bucks than does) than a guy who is hunting a unit with 10 dpsm pre fawn.

I'll ask you a follow up question seeing as you're in a unit that directly borders WI...what do you think the densities are in the WI DMU right across the river from you?

[mntatonka]

Considerably higher, due to extreme amounts of leasing. They've also got major problems with deer damage and overpopulation, and had disease problems as well.

You've posted maps about deer per hunter, and how terribly low it is. Yet you've got approximately the same number of deer per hunter as 346 does on average, and for the most part hunters in 346 aren't complaining about low numbers. Yes, you've got less deer per square mile, but you've also got less hunters per square mile.

[Todd Caswell]

Quote:

I'll ask you the same question I asked Todd...what unit do you hunt?

I hunt public land in the longville area , for years we were a 2 deer area and even a 5 deer area for a couple, the last 2 it has been a lottery area. sure deer numbers are down from what they were then, but I believe they are where they need to be now. Our group of 5 seen 39 deer the first 3 days of the season, 37 the year befor. And no we don't horn hunt if it's a legal buck and it's a good shot we take it..

[Gordie]

Todd, that hasn't occurred to most people that are complaining about low deer numbers. We've all gotten so complacent and lazy having so many deer over the past decade, that now we are all made have to do a little work to shoot a deer

Exactly, hunting was never supposed to be easy. Its a lot of work and when John Doe (sorry for the pun) can't walk to is heated box stand from the comfort of his truck that is parked 20 ft away and not shoot a deer, that must mean there is no deer left in this state.

[smsmith]

Considerably higher, due to extreme amounts of leasing. They've also got major problems with deer damage and overpopulation, and had disease problems as well.

You've posted maps about deer per hunter, and how terribly low it is. Yet you've got approximately the same number of deer per hunter as 346 does on average, and for the most part hunters in 346 aren't complaining about low numbers. Yes, you've got less deer per square mile, but you've also got less hunters per square mile.

Not a lot of leasing around LaCrosse. I lived in WI for most of my life and LaCrosse isn't a highly sought out area for leasing. Densities there are in the mid 40's per square mile.

Recent DNR surveys indicate that hunter satisfaction in zone 3 has dropped considerably....

I agree that your hunter densities are higher, but seeing as you have APR's that'd mean more folks have to pass on those yearling bucks. Better chance of a few guys at least seeing a deer given those circumstances.

I'm happy that your happy...I'm not. There is no biological reason for MN having the deer densities we currently do.

Just wanted to add...no disease in the WI DMU right across the river from you

[smsmith]

I hunt public land in the longville area , for years we were a 2 deer area and even a 5 deer area for a couple, the last 2 it has been a lottery area. sure deer numbers are down from what they were then, but I believe they are where they need to be now. Our group of 5 seen 39 deer the first 3 days of the season, 37 the year befor. And no we don't horn hunt if it's a legal buck and it's a good shot we take it..

Okay...if you're happy with 13 dpsm...then we don't have a lot to discuss I suppose.

[Todd Caswell]

[Then we should have taken the same approach as they take to the stupid wolf. Once there is too many deer they would die off in areas where there are too many. Just like once there are too many wolves they will die from manage and lack of food. The population was just fine for thousands of years until our govt biologist and legislature blanked it all up. Its pretty obvious the much higher populations were sustainable otherwise they would have been dying all over the state, and that wasnt the case./quote]

You also have to remember that deer/auto collisions have alot to do with the number that the DNR feels is a healthy population. Insurance companies don't like an overpopulated deer herd.

[Todd Caswell]

Quote:

Exactly, hunting was never supposed to be easy. Its a lot of work and when John Doe (sorry for the pun) can't walk to is heated box stand from the comfort of his truck that is parked 20 ft away and not shoot a deer, that must mean there is no deer left in this state.

Not only do they want more Deer, but Bigger Deer (APR) , and less people hunting them ( a lisc. drawing). Sorry but I don't see it happening..

[smsmith]

You also have to remember that deer/auto collisions have alot to do with the number that the DNR feels is a healthy population. Insurance companies don't like an overpopulated deer herd.

The DNR will tell you (and swear up and down) that the auto insurance industry has absolutely nothing to do with deer population goals here. Of course...there were two auto insurance reps on my public stakeholder meeting the last time around

Car/deer collisions are down 70% in some areas of central and eastcentral MN.

[mntatonka]

Move north a bit. I'm across the border of buffalo county, which has more leased land than virtually anywhere else. That part of Wisconsin was highly sought after for trophy hunting until cwd hit. It's still sought after, but there's less to go around since it's already all locked up.

That part of Wisconsin has more crop damage than even we do, so that's a definite sign there's too many deer. Not to mention browse lines you can even see from the road. As well as making it much harder to control the spread of disease.

[smsmith]

Not only do they want more Deer, but Bigger Deer (APR) , and less people hunting them ( a lisc. drawing). Sorry but I don't see it happening..

Who is "they"?

[smsmith]

Move north a bit. I'm across the border of buffalo county, which has more leased land than virtually anywhere else. That part of Wisconsin was highly sought after for trophy hunting until cwd hit. It's still sought after, but there's less to go around since it's already all locked up.

That part of Wisconsin has more crop damage than even we do, so that's a definite sign there's too many deer. Not to mention browse lines you can even see from the road. As well as making it much harder to control the spread of disease.

Yep, you're correct about leased land in Buffalo Cty. It is still highly sought after...probably the most highly sought after "deer hunting" land in the U.S. No CWD in Buffalo Cty. though.

That part of WI does have crop damage. Dpsm's in the upper 40's over winter is too many deer....dpsm's in the teens over winter is too few. If you move east in WI to Waupaca Cty they have overwinter densities in the 70's