I wonder where the state line is?

[DonBo]

No matter what map you use on this comparison Wisconsin still going to have higher deer pop anyway you slice it.

Not nessesarily, not if you ask those of us who hunt that side of the river. Antlerless tags have been given away like candy for over a decade now. Most WS hunters are beothching about deer numbers, just like MN hunters are. DNR can make up stats to fit what they want, but hunters in the field have a pretty good idea of population trends.

[NorthwoodsMap]

Hey guys - I haven't been on this forum in awhile.....

Someone told me that my maps are starting a good chat on here.

One quick glance at the recent Wisconsin Map that just got posted - the map colors will change some but Wisconsin still will have more deer. I will hopefully have time to update the map so you have both to compare to.

[sticknstring]

Really appreciate all your help on the maps - excellent job!

[sticknstring]

Ran a quick comparison in the driftless region as the habitat is basically the same and easy to compare. This is using firearm deer hunter density per square mile and dpsm (total area).

MN areas

339 0-1 (deer per hunter)

341 0-1

342 0-1

345 0-1

346 0-1

WI area (across the river - same habitat)

60A .67

61 3.07

59D 2

74A 1.86

If you knew similar habitat, I suppose you could compare other areas as well, but it would be much more difficult.

[mntatonka]

Ran a quick comparison in the driftless region as the habitat is basically the same and easy to compare. This is using firearm deer hunter density per square mile and dpsm (total area).

MN areas

339 0-1 (deer per hunter)

341 0-1

342 0-1

345 0-1

346 0-1

WI area (across the river - same habitat)

60A .67

61 3.07

59D 2

74A 1.86

If you knew similar habitat, I suppose you could compare other areas as well, but it would be much more difficult.

That's assuming those estimates for Zone 3 are remotely accurate, which isn't likely. If there was only 0-1 deer per hunter in Zone 3, they wouldn't still have early antlerless areas in spots, would have minimal crop damage, and there would have been more hunter's choice or even lottery areas like much of the rest of the state in the same deer/hunter value.

[sticknstring]

That's assuming those estimates for Zone 3 are remotely accurate, which isn't likely. If there was only 0-1 deer per hunter in Zone 3, they wouldn't still have early antlerless areas in spots, would have minimal crop damage, and there would have been more hunter's choice or even lottery areas like much of the rest of the state in the same deer/hunter value.

Here's the DPSM for the same zones. An arm's throw away in the same area of habitat and you have 2-3x the deer. This data is provided by both state DNR offices. And this is in some of the best areas of MN. Imagine what the rest of the state looks like. And nothing is amiss?

MN areas

339 5 (dpsm)

341 12

342 14

345 10

346 16

WI areas

60A 16

61 43

59D 30

74A 26

[SmellEsox]

And MN and WI still produced 1.8 billion bu of corn combined. Sounds like deer have a huge impact on the world's supply of corn.

[mntatonka]

Here's the DPSM for the same zones. An arm's throw away in the same area of habitat and you have 2-3x the deer. This data is provided by both state DNR offices. And this is in some of the best areas of MN. Imagine what the rest of the state looks like. And nothing is amiss?

MN areas

339 5 (dpsm)

341 12

342 14

345 10

346 16

WI areas

60A 16

61 43

59D 30

74A 26

Like I said, that's assuming you believe MN's numbers for those areas.

Here's another reason those areas of WI have higher densities: LAND LEASING.

[Musky Buck]

Interesting. All I know is Wisc. is habitat central and somehow they must come through winter in decent shape to carry that many deer, must be enough browse etc to carry that and we can in many places in the state, how we carry good numbers let's say in the western part of the state where all I see in Wilkin County for example is field and irrigation and a few acres of trees surrounding farmyards ? You want to spend the winter out there ? Does Wisconsin have a Wilkin county or 20 ? I think the wind chill really punishes the western part of the state and by the time the wind hits even east central MN it's generally 1/2 of what western MN gets so Wisc. being timber doesn't quite suffer the brutal wind chills that west of I 94 does, open country for example try coming out of Isle Bay on Lake Mille-Lacs with a 3-5 MPH from the NW and you are white capped to the hilt, found that out last summer, wind breaks are good for deer. IDK lol If we didn't have rivers and creeks man we wouldn't have squat for deer, can't plow that up.

[Jameson]

...If there was only 0-1 deer per hunter in Zone 3, they wouldn't still have early antlerless areas in spots, would have minimal crop damage, and there would have been more hunter's choice or even lottery areas like much of the rest of the state in the same deer/hunter value.

Show a correlation between hunter/deer and deer area designation first. There should be a very direct one, IMO. The DNR is making up deer area designation at this point just as much as they are deer population estimates. Just using whatever numbers make them money.

[UNDBowhunter]

Good points stickandstring. Again, no matter how you go about it, MN has alot lower deer density than Wisconsin. That is what I was trying to get at with Northern MN zones vs. Northern Wisconsin. Its not even close....and the MN DNR Spring estimate should be lower because of last spring winter kill.

I wonder what the deer density will be after this winter!!! I hope that people realize what the potential winter kill might be this year.

[sticknstring]

I wonder what the deer density will be after this winter!!! I hope that people realize what the potential winter kill might be this year.

No doubt about it, it's going to be ugly. We haven't hit bottom yet, that's for sure. Wouldn't be surprised to see a 150k harvest next year.

[SmellEsox]

I've been thinking about these pre-fawn densities. You should be able to backcalculate an estimate of density by dividing the known buck and doe kill by the proportion killed. In other words, if you think 60% of your bucks get killed every year, divide the buck kill by 0.6. That should give you an approximation of the buck population. Do the same for the does. For example, if you think 40% of the does in your PA get shot, divide the total number shot by 0.4 and it should give you the total number of does pre-hunt. Add the buck and doe estimates together and you should have the pre-fawn population. Then divide the estimate by the total sq. miles of the PA and it should give you a pre-fawn dpsm. Does that make sense or is that way over-simplifying things?

Here's a real life example:

PA 215

2012 buck harvest - 1311

2012 doe harvest - 1095

If 60% of the bucks in the population are getting killed then the total buck population would be 1311/.6=2185

If 40% of the does are being killed then the doe population would be 1095/.4=2738

2185+2738=4923

PA 215=730 sq mi so 4923/730 = 6.7 dpsm

[92GSteve]

As someone who spends a lot of time in the woods between the National Forest in north central WI and the farm country in western WI I thought I'd chime in. The predators and weather have not been good to the deer numbers over here either. Throw in the years of free or $2 antlerless tags in "herd control" units that Donbo mentioned and the 24+ number seems laughable. WI and MN are both large states and it's tough to compare the southern and northern parts but rest assured that not all of WI is like Buffalo County. DNR has a tough job trying to keep everyone happy that's for sure. Most would love to see the deer numbers that we had 10-15 years ago.

[NorthwoodsMap]

Hey guys - I haven't been on this forum in awhile.....

Someone told me that my maps are starting a good chat on here.

The updated map is on our facebook page.

Not sure if the admins will let me post the map on here?

[B-man715]

If you guys really want a broken heart, google Pope and Young Map.........

[hockeybc69]

Nothing says you cant post it. The other versions have been posted with no issues.

Lets see it.

[NorthwoodsMap]

Updated map:

Same map as above - different legend (classification) values

[smsmith]

No doubt about it, it's going to be ugly. We haven't hit bottom yet, that's for sure. Wouldn't be surprised to see a 150k harvest next year.

I think 150K may be overly optimistic for next year...and maybe for 2015 as well

[Bear55]

That is what I was trying to get at with Northern MN zones vs. Northern Wisconsin. Its not even close....and the MN DNR Spring estimate should be lower because of last spring winter kill.

We probably need to compare northern WI with central MN, different habitat and longer winters when you move into the upper 1/3 of MN. You can sometimes see a month or more longer winters in far northern Minnesota. Even with the snow being at the same levels the length of the snow pack can make a bigger difference on winter survival. Last year was kind of an extreme example but the snow was gone in central MN and there was still a foot+ in the far north.

[Xplorer]

Having hunted zone 28 in Wisconsin (Hurley area) at my inlaws for 10 years and hunting north of Cloquet, the climate is not the same. As far as snow goes, there is the "snowbelt area" that exceeds our average, and a much bigger swath that is outside of the snowbelt that receives less snow and warmer temps on average.

Here's a real life situation. My inlaws live in Iron Belt, in the heart of the snowbelt. Their cabin is located 10 miles almost straight south of the house, yet receives on average 1/2 of the snowfall each winter as their house does. Numbers are down over there too, FIL is retired and bowhunts, gun hunts and muzzie hunts. Basically from Sept 15th to Dec 15th he is in the woods and he has seen numbers plummet in recent years.

[Bear55]

The snow belt can certainly make a difference but you can still have a much shorter/milder winter in that area. Cloquet might be "up north" to some people but its really kind of a in-between area and you are just starting to touch the northern 1/3 of the state. You still have a 150+ mile drive to Canada and there can be a big difference in winter severity when you are talking 50 miles north of hwy2 vs 50 miles further south.

[smsmith]

MN deer are obviously much "tougher" than WI deer.

Quote from WI DNR

"The DNR uses snow and temperature readings from dozens of sites to form a Winter Severity Index. Each site accumulates one point each day the temperature is 0 degrees Fahrenheit or colder and one point each day the snow is 18 inches or deeper. The data are recorded Dec. 1 through April 30.

At the end of the season, if the points total less than 50, it's considered a mild winter; 50 to 79, moderate; 80 to 99, severe; more than 100, very severe."

From this article - http://www.jsonline.com/sports/outdoors/...-243891181.html

Quote from Leslie McInenly (MN DNR)

“At this point in the year the WSI only gives us an indication of the potential for a severe winter,” said Leslie McInenly, big game program leader for the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. “That said, the index numbers are above the average mid-season levels for much of northern Minnesota but not as high as the severe winters of 1995-96 and 1996-97. In general, I’ve heard from northern area managers that they start seeing increased fawn mortality somewhere between 130-150 (moderate-severe) and adult mortality up around 180.”

From this article - http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/article/id/290329/group/sports/

So while WI deer are feeling the impact of a "very severe" winter with a WSI of 100, our MN deer are still not even in the "moderate" range. Sure...that makes sense to me

[Jameson]

MN deer are obviously much "tougher" than WI deer....

Realize you're being sarcastic here, but they just might be.

I have had probably a half-dozen guys who are familiar with deer hunting south of Duluth comment to me after hunting up north for the first time that the does they saw were just HUGE.

[smsmith]

If there is a separate sub-species of deer in northern MN than there is in northern WI, I could accept that (though I doubt the discrepancy in WSI would still be as large as it is).

However, for Leslie to say that fawns here "start" to experience increased mortality at 130-150...I find that to be pure b.s. Fawns in WI start to experience increased mortality in the upper 80's to low 90's. So a fawn in northern MN has the ability to withstand a minimum of 40 extra WSI days than a fawn in Superior, WI? That's reasonable?

I suppose there's the possibility that MN deer have a chance of being a genetic combo of Odocoileus virginianus borealis and Odocoileus virginianus docotensis. However, I'm not sure the latter would lead to any larger bodies or more winter "hardiness".

One of the largest bodied deer I've seen was a doe just north of Vermillion Bay, ON. I'm sure the reason for her massive size was age.....