WHY

[smsmith]

Another question for the guys who are happy/satisfied with our current deer herd:

Lou Cornicelli is on record as saying MN should probably aim for deer kills in the 210-220K (http://samcook.areavoices.com/2012/01/19/minnesota-dnr-will-reassess-deer-population-goals/)

Do you think he's wrong? Should we be aiming for deer kills more like we have this year (170K)?

About 500K deer hunters in MN...Around 720K deer licenses/tags sold in 2012..about 2000 more licenses/tags sold in unit 222 than were adult deer in 2013....harvests of 170K? I just can't get on board with that idea.

[mntatonka]

I think 90% of what Lou does is wrong, but that's more personal opinion of his character than anything.

[PurpleFloyd]

There is no biological reason for MN having the deer densities we currently do.

Deer densities are determined by more things than just Biology. The number one factor that needs to improve if you want higher deer harvests while also not limiting hunters is to create more habitat that can sustain the population. The harvest also is impacted by things like the weather and the crop harvest. This year we had a pretty good year with a pretty good success ration but we were fortunate considering the weather was not very good considering the snow and wind we got that made the deer bed down and stop moving plus the hundreds of acres of standing corn that was in the fields through the whole season, which was unheard of considering how late the season ran this year.That being said if the weather was better and if the corn was out I have no doubt our party would have had nearly a 100% success rate rather than the 73% we had.We are also losing so much habitat. With land prices so high it has become very cost effective to remove every abandoned grove and tree line in order to turn it into black dirt. The only reason at this point that our hunting is looking pretty good is our area is losing hunters faster than it is losing habitat so the lack of pressure offsets the lack of cover but at some point that may very well change.

But when you are talking private land the owner needs to do what is in their best financial interest. So with that said, I realize in some areas there is an opportunity to increase carrying capacity bit I do know that all over the state there are homes popping up all over the place in areas that used to be open spaces where people used to hunt. That limits the places hunters have to occupy and it concentrates them into smaller and smaller areas,increasing hunter density while the loss of habitat lowers deer density. With the housing boom we have gone through in the last 2 decades and much of it happening where developments are put in "natural" settings you cannot help but to realize that what worked a decade ago might not be possible or practical today. This may not be the case in your specific location. It's a big state and a very diverse state.

So how do we go about increasing deer density and how do we do it in a way that keeps the population stable? I think everyone sees the WSI this year and knows that much of the herd is going to be stressed by the long,cold winter but if the herd was say 30% higher, what impact would that have on the herd? If it is tough for the deer we have to get the food and cover they need to survive, how would there be enough food or cover to go around with another 30,000 deer in the state? Also, in terms of Biology- if the deer herd increases that means more food for Wolves and Coyote. Will increasing the deer herd also increase the predator population and will that increase offset much of the gain we got from whatever regulation we put in place to grow the herd?

Not saying you are wrong, just adding points to the discussion.

[smsmith]

I think 90% of what Lou does is wrong, but that's more personal opinion of his character than anything.

Guess he's not my favorite guy either...but I'd take him leading the DNR over Leslie. At least Lou has hunted and worked with deer.

What is your opinion on the question I posed....stay at 170Kish for a total kill or get back to 200K+?

[smsmith]

Deer densities are determined by more things than just Biology. The number one factor that needs to improve if you want higher deer harvests while also not limiting hunters is to create more habitat that can sustain the population. The harvest also is impacted by things like the weather and the crop harvest. This year we had a pretty good year with a pretty good success ration but we were fortunate considering the weather was not very good considering the snow and wind we got that made the deer bed down and stop moving plus the hundreds of acres of standing corn that was in the fields through the whole season, which was unheard of considering how late the season ran this year.That being said if the weather was better and if the corn was out I have no doubt our party would have had nearly a 100% success rate rather than the 73% we had.We are also losing so much habitat. With land prices so high it has become very cost effective to remove every abandoned grove and tree line in order to turn it into black dirt. The only reason at this point that our hunting is looking pretty good is our area is losing hunters faster than it is losing habitat so the lack of pressure offsets the lack of cover but at some point that may very well change.

But when you are talking private land the owner needs to do what is in their best financial interest. So with that said, I realize in some areas there is an opportunity to increase carrying capacity bit I do know that all over the state there are homes popping up all over the place in areas that used to be open spaces where people used to hunt. That limits the places hunters have to occupy and it concentrates them into smaller and smaller areas,increasing hunter density while the loss of habitat lowers deer density. With the housing boom we have gone through in the last 2 decades and much of it happening where developments are put in "natural" settings you cannot help but to realize that what worked a decade ago might not be possible or practical today. This may not be the case in your specific location. It's a big state and a very diverse state.

So how do we go about increasing deer density and how do we do it in a way that keeps the population stable? I think everyone sees the WSI this year and knows that much of the herd is going to be stressed by the long,cold winter but if the herd was say 30% higher, what impact would that have on the herd? If it is tough for the deer we have to get the food and cover they need to survive, how would there be enough food or cover to go around with another 30,000 deer in the state? Also, in terms of Biology- if the deer herd increases that means more food for Wolves and Coyote. Will increasing the deer herd also increase the predator population and will that increase offset much of the gain we got from whatever regulation we put in place to grow the herd?

Not saying you are wrong, just adding points to the discussion.

I may have asked you this already, so if I did forgive me....what part of the state do you hunt in?

Here in southern Todd Cty. there is very little habitat loss to the "ethanol craze" or to new housing development.

Your points are of course valid, however I'd counter that much of the state isn't experiencing what you describe. The southern 1/4 to 1/3 certainly is. I'm always amazed at how "different" the weather, habitat, and people are when I'm down that way.

You bring up winter kill in years like this. How does our neighbor to the east have densities 2-8 (or more) times what we have? Obviously WI isn't as far north as MN, but believe me...winter in at least the northern half of WI is just as harsh as it is here. Those WI counties in the Lake Superior snow belt get pounded with far more snow than most of MN and they experience the deep freeze just as badly. Most of those counties have densities at least 1.5 times (several 2.5) what I have here in southern Todd Cty. The habitat here is far more conducive to supporting deer than those counties.

I'm concerned that some folks here have accepted what the MN DNR has been saying as fact. Perception is reality. If folks generally trust the DNR and are continually exposed to their press releases....it becomes "fact". I don't think much of what the DNR has been telling folks is completely accurate.

[PurpleFloyd]

I hunt in South Central Mn.But tbe corn belt is.bigger than you are giving it credit for.

As far as Northern Wi Lake Superior region, I lived there for several years,my wife is from there and we still have family and land up there so I can speak on that a little. The reason for higher densities has to do with lower hunter densities. The Chequamegon National Forest is a darn big area and a lot of it is pretty remote and not easy for the city slickers to get to.Heck, in the 80's and 90's they were doing everything wrong according to the new wisdom sprouting up. You could take up to 6 deer a season, they didnt pass up deer when they went by and yet the population was very high. They have the habitat and more room for the deer to hide. Then the Wolves were introduced and a lot of that is changing because they can and do go to places many hunters dont and they dont follow a season. The result is that hunters are seeing fewer deer than they used to even with similar pressure. This is what I know from personal experience,from relatives that live and hunt up there and the guys at the bars etc.I am sure that just like around here there are hunters who have different results.

[PurpleFloyd]

Here in southern Todd Cty. there is very little habitat loss to the "ethanol craze" or to new housing development.

Your points are of course valid, however I'd counter that much of the state isn't experiencing what you describe. The southern 1/4 to 1/3 certainly is. I'm always amazed at how "different" the weather, habitat, and people are when I'm down that way.

Oh yeah, just keep in mind I am in no way making the claim that my experiences represent the whole state and actually quite the opposite. What I have been saying is that many of the problems brought up are local problems that are not consistent through the whole state so trying to pass legislation statewide to solve a local problem might not be the best idea. And what works where you hunt or I hunt might not work where another person hunts. I do seem to remember reading that you are not proposing anything uniformly statewide and that you were also trying to make sure to keep decisions local so I think we are on the same page for the most part.

[BLACKJACK]

We are also losing so much habitat. With land prices so high it has become very cost effective to remove every abandoned grove and tree line in order to turn it into black dirt.

all over the state there are homes popping up all over the place in areas that used to be open spaces where people used to hunt.

You've identified two factors limiting deer populations, a third factor in the central and southern ag lands is the lack of good habitat on our public lands, the focus nowadays is prairie, prairie, prairie, restore prairie, cut down trees, run cows thru the areas. By the time they get done, the only habitat left is a few cattails. The worst is the Fish and Wildlife service, all they care about is butterflies and prairie birds. And Pheasants Forever has fallen right into their trap, buying land and then turning it over to F&W. The good news is that its not going under the plow, the bad news is that it will be managed by F&W. Even the DNR has fallen into the prairie trap, removing trees, not doing any food plots.

We could have twice as many pheasants if they would put a 5 acre food plot and a 5 acre shelterbelt on each one of these lands. Drive thru the countryside right now, drive by a wildlife area and ask yourself "what is a pheasant going to eat to survive".

Back to the point of this post, anything you do for pheasants will benefit deer. Granted you will find deer in these prairie wastelands but you'd find more if there was some cover.

Don't believe me, take a drive on opening of deer hunting, see where the deer hunters are, they'll be parked on every approach on public lands with tree cover, you might see one vehicle on the public land managed by F&W.

These lands were bought by hunter’s dollars, duck stamps and pheasant banquets, yet hunters don’t get the benefit that they could be getting.

One more point and then I’ll get off my soapbox. The DNR gives lip service to ‘hunter recruitment’, they (and posters on this site) worry about getting youths involved in hunting, but what happens when Joe Hunter from Woodbury looks at a map of western MN, takes his kids out there hunting – and finds a barren prairie, grazed down by cows, goes to the next public area, finds a few cattails, takes the kid out, they see and harvest nothing – how many more times do you think they’ll be making that drive out from Woodbury??

[smsmith]

Oh yeah, just keep in mind I am in no way making the claim that my experiences represent the whole state and actually quite the opposite. What I have been saying is that many of the problems brought up are local problems that are not consistent through the whole state so trying to pass legislation statewide to solve a local problem might not be the best idea. And what works where you hunt or I hunt might not work where another person hunts. I do seem to remember reading that you are not proposing anything uniformly statewide and that you were also trying to make sure to keep decisions local so I think we are on the same page for the most part.

I'd much prefer the MN DNR be responsive to our concerns than making any new legislation to deal with the issues in central and east central MN. I'd also like to see the DNR be open/willing to discuss changes in the public stakeholder process.

Regarding your previous point about the corn belt. I certainly am not implying that corn isn't king here...it obviously is. The difference between the central part of the state and further south (in my observation anyway) is that we don't have section after section (after section) of field with little to no cover. There are obviously some areas here like that, but they are not the dominant force that they are further south. I'd have to drive quite aways east to find any full sections of row crop ground.

[mntatonka]

Guess he's not my favorite guy either...but I'd take him leading the DNR over Leslie. At least Lou has hunted and worked with deer.

What is your opinion on the question I posed....stay at 170Kish for a total kill or get back to 200K+?

What's the point in trying to hit an overall harvest? The deer population is going to swing up and down quite a bit when we have a few bad winters in a row or a few good winters in a row. While I agree that the DNR needs to be far more proactive in listening to their local managers and local hunters while adjusting the tag limits, I don't think they should have any reason to hit a total harvest goal.

[smsmith]

What's the point in trying to hit an overall harvest? The deer population is going to swing up and down quite a bit when we have a few bad winters in a row or a few good winters in a row. While I agree that the DNR needs to be far more proactive in listening to their local managers and local hunters while adjusting the tag limits, I don't think they should have any reason to hit a total harvest goal.

The point would be a relatively stable deer herd. A 44% swing in 10 years seems a bit excessive to me. I'd prefer regional managers listen to St. Paul. My guy is managing for numbers lower than the public stakeholders set and ignoring what leadership in St. Paul tell him to manage for.

The public stakeholder process as it currently exists is a sham. Speak to someone who sat on a team last time around. I've communicated with a number of them now (several from a well known "deer group")....they all report the same thing last time around. The DNR came in and said there will be a reduction..which do you prefer 25 or 50%? Groups who had their own data were ignored as it didn't fit with what the DNR wanted. Okay...if the DNR is going to do what they do...okay...just don't fall back to the position of "we have to do what the public stakeholders told us to do"....when those stakeholders DIDN'T tell them to do it. Don't tell folks we have to follow the goals established by the public stakeholders...then allow regional guys to set their own numbers.

Either set the goals arbitrarily as the State, or involve the public legitimately in the process. I find the current public stakeholder process to be a complete waste of time and most importantly....our tax and license fee dollars.

[SmellEsox]

Most of the farmers around Little Falls that I know are wondering where all the deer went. Most want more around because their hunting sucks.

[smsmith]

Most of the farmers around Little Falls that I know are wondering where all the deer went. Most want more around because their hunting sucks.

Same thing I hear from Swanville, Long Prairie, Grey Eagle, Burtrum, etc.

[mntatonka]

The point would be a relatively stable deer herd. A 44% swing in 10 years seems a bit excessive to me. I'd prefer regional managers listen to St. Paul. My guy is managing for numbers lower than the public stakeholders set and ignoring what leadership in St. Paul tell him to manage for.

The public stakeholder process as it currently exists is a sham. Speak to someone who sat on a team last time around. I've communicated with a number of them now (several from a well known "deer group")....they all report the same thing last time around. The DNR came in and said there will be a reduction..which do you prefer 25 or 50%? Groups who had their own data were ignored as it didn't fit with what the DNR wanted. Okay...if the DNR is going to do what they do...okay...just don't fall back to the position of "we have to do what the public stakeholders told us to do"....when those stakeholders DIDN'T tell them to do it. Don't tell folks we have to follow the goals established by the public stakeholders...then allow regional guys to set their own numbers.

Either set the goals arbitrarily as the State, or involve the public legitimately in the process. I find the current public stakeholder process to be a complete waste of time and most importantly....our tax and license fee dollars.

It's the job of the state to listen to the regional managers. That's why the regional managers are there. The state has consistently ignored the recommendations of the regional managers in Zone 3, and that's why much of the zone ended up overpopulated for so long. It's also how we ended up with APR's and a cross-tagging ban, something the regional managers were completely against (for good reason).

There's always going to be a swing in the harvest, it's not entirely controllable considering it's partly controlled by weather. It's been happening forever. 2003 was such a high harvest compared to the historical harvests, that we had a long way to fall to get down to the low. Between bad winters, late springs, more predators, and less habitat, the population was bound to come back down to a low point at some time.

[Todd Caswell]

Most of the farmers around Little Falls that I know are wondering where all the deer went. Most want more around because their hunting sucks.

Well maybe we could subsidies them in some way for a poor deer crop this past year..

[smsmith]

It's the job of the state to listen to the regional managers.

Well...that's not what the DNR will tell you. They'll tell you it is the job of the State AND the regional folks to listen to the "public" via the stakeholder meeting process.

Regional managers can make adjustments to those goals if and only if (this straight from Marrett Grund) they can make an unequivocal statement about why the herd should be decreased or increased from what the "public" wants. That would mean quantifiable evidence of increased depredation complaints (doesn't exist in central or east central MN), increased car/deer collisions...those are down on average about 50% in the areas we're talking about, or increased forestry complaints...those don't exist either.

[SmellEsox]

Well maybe we could subsidies them in some way for a poor deer crop this past year..

Ha!

[LandDr]

I went out and got my cameras the other day to bring them in for the year. Walking through my cover and food I probably seen close to 150 deer and possibly up to 300 pheasants...and this was a short walk through the center of my 160 acre farm. I'm not kidding either...I am dead serious.

We can certainly complain about how the State is managing public lands as I have grave concerns with it...they are missing the boat and it is going to severely cost us in the long term and our kids and kid's kids are unfortunately going to have poorly managed land (unless something changes soon).

However...no one can complain about what is going on or not going on on "private" land. Private land is in our own control for the vast part. We have the decision of what we plant and what we shoot. If the DNR says you can shoot 5 deer...that doesn't mean you have to shoot 5 deer. But if your neighbors shoot 5 deer, don't complain about it...do something about it. Either go talk to them in a civil manner OR plant the cover and food to hold more deer on your property. It's really that simple. Whatever the DNR does, I am still going to manage MY PROPERTY the way that I WANT TO. If the DNR says I can shoot 5 deer...my family will probably take 2 or 3. If the DNR says I can shoot 1 deer...my family will probably still harvest 2 or 3 between all of our licenses. Understanding my point?

So...I agree that we need to work hard on the DNR to change the way they manage public land. But if you hunt private land and want more deer and bigger deer, then I would recommend you take matters into your own hands and start increasing the carrying capacity of your property...the ability of your property to attract and hold more deer and better deer.

Question...what can happen faster, changing the DNR or getting a plan in place and implementing the plan to increase your property's carrying capacity? The answer...you can start implementing your plan THIS SPRING but I will assure you the DNR will not change by this spring and most likely not by next fall either.

Get a plan going to your own property...your friend's property, your relative's, your neighbor's or whoever...make it happen. Promote this through your local groups...hold a meeting...get someone there that understands carrying capacity and habitat to speak to your group, etc. Make it happen because this can happen a lot faster than any government can move.

Who's in?

[smsmith]

Who's in?

I've been in for close to 20 years. If you are holding that many deer on 160 acres I applaud you. I can guarantee you that in order to have that many deer on a quarter of a square mile here it would require every deer for 8-10 square miles to pile in for a deer yard.

There is no real way to effectively increase the size of a deer herd while managing 160 acres...unless you get help from the neighbors and/or the State. I've got 87 acres. One set of neighbors has 440+, another has a 40. We all practice pretty similar management techniques. However, all the other neighbors are pretty much "brown its down". Once any of the deer leave our places and head to theirs....boom...boom...boom. Trying to keep any number of deer from leaving less than a square mile isn't going to happen.

An idea I'm entertaining is to start a co-op of sorts to see how many folks would be interested. Nothing formal...just trying to get folks to willingly (i.e. voluntarily) start passing does and to practice some sort of restraint on buck harvests.

Given this is central MN....I have limited optimism

[LandDr]

smmith...I mean "in" for implementing a plan and getting it in the ground this spring. It is obvious you are passionate about the issues and you are "in" for fixing the issues. That is great!

My 160 was not like this when I started working on it...there were not many deer and the size of the bucks were small baskets. I wasn't even interested in hunting deer on this property. The projects actually started as mission to maximize the pheasant population...and I mean MAX. I was told by the DNR back then that I wouldn't be able to have more than 50 or 60 pheasants per quarter...but I wanted 150 to 200. So I set out to do it.

Along the way my deer herd started to change...more deer, bigger deer and deer getting older. Out of this I developed my seminar that I give at Deer Classic, Game Fair, etc. called "Small Property Management for Whitetails".

I have landowners around me that are "brown its down"...but the majority of the deer don't want to leave my property anymore. So the neighbors look in.

Here is an analogy that I use...my wife likes to shop in St. Cloud, Albertville, Alexandria, the cities, etc. She has a large "home range" because of this (doe home range in reference to deer). If I was following her around, I would follow her across many county lines (property lines in reference to deer). This would increase my exposure to hunters if I was being hunted and most likely I would be harvested. Now...let's put all of those places my wife likes to go right outside of our house. What has this done to her home range? It has reduced it drastically. What has this done to my exposure to being harvested? It has reduced that as well.

In summary...if you provide the does with EVERYTHING they want or need, then they will not go anywhere else. In fact, you will have does coming from other places to stay on your property. My smallest doe home range is 5-7 acres, while most are in that 10-15 acre range.

But that is just part of it. We all know that large doe groups hold bucks better. So my doe groups consist of 6 to 8 does...not 1 to 2 does like others might tell you to be at (shoot your does). I like does...and I like a lot of them. Just like a "ladies night" at the bar, I create a ladies night on my property...and guess what happens? All the boys show up! And they don't want to leave either. In my PLM Management by Thirds concept, 1 doe group = 1 dominant buck...so manage for the girls to have the boys. And everything else will fall into place.

I am not sure what your soils or landuses are in your 87 acres, but I bet there are some options to increase the ability of your property to attract and hold more deer.

[Getanet]

Great, now you're just making the deer lazy!

[smsmith]

smmith...I mean "in" for implementing a plan and getting it in the ground this spring. It is obvious you are passionate about the issues and you are "in" for fixing the issues. That is great!

My 160 was not like this when I started working on it...there were not many deer and the size of the bucks were small baskets. I wasn't even interested in hunting deer on this property. The projects actually started as mission to maximize the pheasant population...and I mean MAX. I was told by the DNR back then that I wouldn't be able to have more than 50 or 60 pheasants per quarter...but I wanted 150 to 200. So I set out to do it.

Along the way my deer herd started to change...more deer, bigger deer and deer getting older. Out of this I developed my seminar that I give at Deer Classic, Game Fair, etc. called "Small Property Management for Whitetails".

I have landowners around me that are "brown its down"...but the majority of the deer don't want to leave my property anymore. So the neighbors look in.

Here is an analogy that I use...my wife likes to shop in St. Cloud, Albertville, Alexandria, the cities, etc. She has a large "home range" because of this (doe home range in reference to deer). If I was following her around, I would follow her across many county lines (property lines in reference to deer). This would increase my exposure to hunters if I was being hunted and most likely I would be harvested. Now...let's put all of those places my wife likes to go right outside of our house. What has this done to her home range? It has reduced it drastically. What has this done to my exposure to being harvested? It has reduced that as well.

In summary...if you provide the does with EVERYTHING they want or need, then they will not go anywhere else. In fact, you will have does coming from other places to stay on your property. My smallest doe home range is 5-7 acres, while most are in that 10-15 acre range.

But that is just part of it. We all know that large doe groups hold bucks better. So my doe groups consist of 6 to 8 does...not 1 to 2 does like others might tell you to be at (shoot your does). I like does...and I like a lot of them. Just like a "ladies night" at the bar, I create a ladies night on my property...and guess what happens? All the boys show up! And they don't want to leave either. In my PLM Management by Thirds concept, 1 doe group = 1 dominant buck...so manage for the girls to have the boys. And everything else will fall into place.

I am not sure what your soils or landuses are in your 87 acres, but I bet there are some options to increase the ability of your property to attract and hold more deer.

By being "in" I was referring to what you stated...habitat improvement/manipulation/etc. I've been doing habitat projects for 20 years or more. On my old place, on my folks' place, and now on my new place. I've only got about 18 months of work done on the new place, so its a work in progress. By the end of next summer I'll have quite a bit more done. I do most of all it alone and by hand...so it takes awhile.

I have everything a doe needs here except I'm lacking in thermal cover. Planted close to 1000 evergreens last year in an attempt to improve that, but lost quite a few to the drought. I'll do that again this year...and next...and the year after most likely. Other than thermal cover...I've got what doe groups need. I have 3 doe groups who use my place quite a bit, but they don't stay on my place 24/7. If you have a "magic bullet" design that I can implement without adding acreage and without a huge capital outlay...I'm all ears.

I've stated before on here...my hunting is probably better than most of my neighbors' already. With another couple years of habitat work..it will improve even more. However...how does me hoarding deer on my place contribute to the continued tradition of deer hunting in MN? It helps me..and my buddy...but that's it.

[LandDr]

I like to think of it as big and tasty, rather than lazy.

But due to the large body weights from less stress through the winter, the surplus protein in going straight up. We have been seeing increases of 30 to 50 inches of antler growth per year on many of the bucks. It's really amazing. I have salt licks out but no mineral.

I think we should do a tour of the farm next summer...get FM to sponsor it.

[LandDr]

smsmith...your setting an example and a demonstration. Rather than just talk, you can reference the example and the results with no talk.

I would stress to everyone that not all habitat is created equal. Just planting "conifers" for example is not equal if the conifers are pine...they have to be spruce and preferably Black Hills Spruce to provide the best thermal cover. Planting the high diversity mix native grasses the NRCS prescribes for you is not the same as a thick stand of Switch, Big Blue, Indian and Slender consisting mostly of Switch for another example. The high diversity mix will just fall to the ground in late fall and winter since it consists of too much "bunch" grasses. All of these things make a huge difference and need to be carefully thought out and implemented.

Shoot me an email and I'd love to take a look at your property.

[smsmith]

smsmith...your setting an example and a demonstration. Rather than just talk, you can reference the example and the results with no talk.

I would stress to everyone that not all habitat is created equal. Just planting "conifers" for example is not equal if the conifers are pine...they have to be spruce and preferably Black Hills Spruce to provide the best thermal cover. Planting the high diversity mix native grasses the NRCS prescribes for you is not the same as a thick stand of Switch, Big Blue, Indian and Slender consisting mostly of Switch for another example. The high diversity mix will just fall to the ground in late fall and winter since it consists of too much "bunch" grasses. All of these things make a huge difference and need to be carefully thought out and implemented.

Shoot me an email and I'd love to take a look at your property.

I may do that. I'm trying to put together a "property tour" with some other QDMA members come spring. I am open to others' ideas and need input on stand placement as well as stand access/screening.

I planted mainly white and norway spruce (norways on ground with better soil and more moisture), as well as some white and red pines. I lost most all of the pines, but the norways are doing pretty well. Next spring it will be a few hundred each of black hills spruce, white spruce, white cedars and balsam firs.

You'd have some talking to do to convince me to plant NWSG. I just don't think it offers much in the way of cover (for deer anyway) come winter this far north. I much prefer to stick with shrubs and scattered pockets of conifers for bedding.