Minnesota Deer Density Initiative

[SmellEsox]

Too many years of them being told to pass on the yearling buck and take a doe instead and the liberalization of bonus tags they started in the 90's that allowed hunters to harvest several deer in a given season in some areas rather than limiting every hunter to one single deer. Now some hunters are realizing that the philosophy of passing on a buck and taking a few does for the freezer may not always be the best solution for sustainable and successful hunting. In areas where the population is skewed so far in favor of does as it was where QDM was born it is a viable option but no solution should ever be seen as universal and all of these proposals should be tailored specifically to individual areas to solve individual problems.

This is exactly why I think DNR should manage for higher populations. If they don't, people who like to see bigger bucks will never get much of an opportunity besides the lucky off-chance one actually survives to 3.5-5.5 years old. If the population is managed higher, we could satisfy both trophy hunters and meat hunters as there would be plenty of does to harvest w/o driving the population down, and we could let yearling bucks walk and provide opportunities for all hunters to shoot or see a mature buck more frequently.

[smsmith]

This is exactly why I think DNR should manage for higher populations. If they don't, people who like to see bigger bucks will never get much of an opportunity besides the lucky off-chance one actually survives to 3.5-5.5 years old. If the population is managed higher, we could satisfy both trophy hunters and meat hunters as there would be plenty of does to harvest w/o driving the population down, and we could let yearling bucks walk and provide opportunities for all hunters to shoot or see a mature buck more frequently.

All a person has to do is look one State east...WI has no APR's....they take twice (at least) the number of deer that MN takes...AND they are almost always number 1 or 2 in trophy bucks taken. More deer = equals more opportunities for every type of deer hunter...those who simply want to take a deer, those who want to "fill the freezer", and those who want to hunt for a mature buck.

[ANYFISH2]

Stu, here is the questions I can not find a sure answer to in my own head. Maybe you have a good theory.

I as you know also want to have higher population, my hope is to build the population to a point that it can support a consistant 2 deer bag limit (managed designation).

However, it appears that our landscape may not be able to support that in the long term. I say this because we have had legitimately high deer populations in the early 2000's and now with predominatly a managed status, our population has dropped to a point we are calling for reduced bag limits.

Now I understand different areas of the state will be and are different. I speak for mainly the transition zone of the state where I hunt and live. This also is probably the most productive part of the state, maybe second to only the bluff country.

Our state really can not be compared to much of wisconsin. Our forested region is just not very productive. With the reduction in logging activities in MN, the habitat is ageing and becomeing less benificial to whitetail deer. It will be the rare occurrence when deer populations are considered "high".

On the other end of the state in the SW and far west portions of the state. Unless your corn or some other crop, there is not enough habitat for a sustainability higher population. I can not see how there could be a population high enough to allow any designation other than lotto.

So IMHO, we are left with less than one third of minnesota that is productive enough to compare with 75% of Wisconsin. Thus why Wisconsin can have twice the harvest and still maintain higher populations of both deer and hunters.

I hope we can help figure out a system where we can consistantly harvest 200-225 thousand deer. Now winters will always be a factor we can not control that provide us with our natural peaks and valley's.

Can our managers make desicions fast enough to shorten the ebbs and flows? IDK.

Is habitat a bigger factor throughout the state? I think so. It is up to us change that, we can't possibly think the state can. Private ownership rules.

How do we maintain the desired higher population?

[smsmith]

How do we maintain the desired higher population?

Hunters here are the key IMHO. Its going to take a change in mindset I believe. We can make the DNR irrelevant if we choose to do so. Just because our DNR sells too many doe tags it doesn't mean we have to go out and fill them.

WI hunters have refused to drop the herd to the levels the WI DNR would like to see. Pretty simple really. Trigger restraint

Will that happen here? I really doubt it.

If hunters can't stop pulling the trigger, then there's only one other chance. That would be a DNR interested in a higher number of deer in the state and who responds to that interest by drastically reducing the number of antlerless tags available for a number of years. I anticipate that happening this year, but I'm also betting that next year we'll see a return to very liberal tag allocation. I think the DNR has the herd right where they want it.

The days of shooting 200K+ deer a year are gone in MN...unless hunters take it upon themselves to make the DNR irrelevant through trigger restraint OR hunters take it upon themselves to loudly demand there be more deer and force the DNR respond (again...look at WI...hunters there are vocal, involved and politically active). Scott Walker recognized how involved WI deer hunters are and used it to his political advantage. See any politicians pandering to deer hunters in MN? I don't

[PRO-V]

I have hunted southern Koochiching County for 34 years. This is the worst deer density I have ever seen. We have been over-run by timberwolves and even they are starving now I believe. We still have plenty of logging and good cover. For the first time in 40 years I refuse to give the DNR my license money. I will not purchase a license but will still go and enjoy camp life, sit in my stand with a .22 rifle, shoot a few grouse and enjoy nature. Let's deprive the DNR of their funding and see if that changes their mind.

[smsmith]

Let's deprive the DNR of their funding and see if that changes their mind.

It would...but only in a huge "block" of hunters...and that block would need to be vocal. Get 100K guys to boycott the season and let their elected know why they are doing so...and you'd get some results....and fast

Problem is...its pretty apparent to me that not even 1/5 of deer hunters here give enough of a schlitz to get involved

[PurpleFloyd]

What kind of rationing are being proposed to get and maintaining the herd? A Turkey style lottery with a limited number of total tags sold?

[mntatonka]

What kind of rationing are being proposed to get and maintaining the herd? A Turkey style lottery with a limited number of total tags sold?

lottery areas have worked just fine for years to bring the population up. The problem is getting the DNR and wildlife managers to listen to the people who are actually in the areas, and act quickly to change the designation or number or permits when things affect the population.

[Jameson]

...lottery areas have worked just fine for years to bring the population up...

I guess that is your opinion, and that mine is just the opposite. Lottery areas have worked ok in some areas of the state to increase the deer population in those areas. Other portions of the state have been lottery for many, many years and thus are not working to increase the population. Changing regulations isn't the complete answer....increasing habitat might be.

[smsmith]

Changing regulations isn't the complete answer....increasing habitat might be.

I'd agree that focusing on habitat in many areas would be a great idea....I'd add a third point...changing hunters' habits.

1. far less liberal antlerless tag allocation

2. improve habitat on private and public land

3. get hunters to stop pulling the trigger indiscriminately

Do those three things and we'd have pretty doggone good deer hunting.

Here's a tidbit for anyone interested...a sportsman's club in central MN wanted to put a 1 acre foodplot on a chunk of public ground (at their expense). This chunk of ground was donated to the DNR by this same sportsman's group...they were told "NO" by the area manager out of Little Falls.

Here you have a group who was ready to add some food for critters to public ground (that THEY raised funds for and donated to the DNR) and it was prevented. Something just isn't right about that IMHO

[Jameson]

The area manager knows that with out any critters there is no use for a foodplot. Or in otherwords, he didn't want to try to explain why a foodplot goes mostly untouched.

[smsmith]

The area manager doesn't want anything that may actually help deer survival/increases in numbers....just ask most anybody who hunts Ripley

[PurpleFloyd]

Habitat is absolutely the key. Without habitat you cannot both maintain the number of hunters(and I sincerely hope nobody is proposing we need fewer hunters)and increase the deer population is by increasing habitat.

[smsmith]

Habitat is absolutely the key. Without habitat you cannot both maintain the number of hunters(and I sincerely hope nobody is proposing we need fewer hunters)and increase the deer population is by increasing habitat.

Habitat in much of central MN is top notch...this area can easily handle twice the numbers we currently have.

Fewer hunters is what we're going to end up with if the situation doesn't improve. Pretty tough to keep hunters in the woods when they see no/few deer. Die hards will stick it out, average "Joes" and new hunters will find something more entertaining to do.

[Bureaucrat]

That's what I think will happen. The areas that go bucks-only may lose some of their meat hunters. Then again, the experiences last year may have already put those wheels in motion with the lack of deer.

I would not be shocked if there was a notable drop in licenses this year. The idea of carrying a .22 vs a deer rifle got my attention.

[smsmith]

Progress....Areas 108, 117, 118, 119, 122, 127, 176, 177 and 178 will be bucks only this year. Permit Areas – 157,221,222,225,227,&236 – will be Hunters Choice.

[elkhuntingfan]

SMSMITH - Where did you find that info? I only see the 2013 maps and regs online.

Thanks.

[smsmith]

SMSMITH - Where did you find that info? I only see the 2013 maps and regs online.

Thanks.

This covers the northern units mentioned http://www.virginiamn.com/sports/feature...19bb2963f4.html

The eastcentral units mentioned come via email from the area manager

[SmellEsox]

Wow! So the Area Manager wanted 221 to be 7 deer, but it's going to be 1 deer instead???!!!! Thats a bit of a switch!

[smsmith]

Wow! So the Area Manager wanted 221 to be 7 deer, but it's going to be 1 deer instead???!!!! Thats a bit of a switch!

Ya think?

As late as January, Beau Liddell told a friend of mine and a MDHA chapter officer that 221 would be Intensive and that he'd be recommending early antlerless as well as possible earn a buck rules.

Now...221 is a one deer unit. If that isn't a round about way of saying the DNR model doesn't work (and they now know it) I don't know what it is. At least someone in the DNR took the aerial survey of 221 showing just over 7 deer per square mile seriously. 221 should have been buck only IMHO...but at least the herd there will get a reprieve for a year.

[Basseyes]

My dad and I purchased a 40 acre chunk of dirt that is surrounded by county and state land stretching towards a decade ago now. After working and trying to manage it for wildlife, I'm convinced managing wildlife is neither as easy nor as hard as people think.

I'm not sure if the MNDNR really has any clue as to the fact we have and will continue to have brutal winters ever x number of years. That, even with global warming isn't going to change much anytime soon. We hunt in area 178. 178 should have never been an intensive area, period. That was a major dis service to the hunters and deer herd. It was mismanagement and ignorance at its core and defined the completely clueless nature of the leadership of the DNR. The boots on the ground seem to understand things much better than the upper crust of the DNR and the legislative process of our managers and legislators. Our area was not alone in that respect of being mismanaged. Many areas should have never been intensive or managed areas.

Big question is why did the DNR believe they should be giving out suckers and lollipops to kids for breakfast, lunch and supper? When they needed something with protein and some raw vitamins from fruits and vegetables. I believe it is because our DNR is in a massive need of an overhaul. It is an outdated fossil that needs to be rebooted with some new ideas.

There has been a constant, consistently repetitive nature to the MNDNR's dis service to this states natural resources management. It manages more on a reactive nature, than a pro active one. I know it is a never ending barrel full of monkeys, fuel and matches. But change is a constant, expect and embrace it. Be fluid with being able to change regulations efficiently, smoothly and swiftly. There has to be a balance within all the constant change.

Going from a 5 deer intensive managed area, to a bucks only, when we know our state can have multiple brutal winters in a row is not an act of God problem. It is a terrible, treacherous lack of leadership and stewardship towards our tremendous resources. That isn't balance, that's knee jerk reacting and over correcting the steering wheel, causing the vehicle to go way off track and tumble down the hill side. It is operator error that causes 95% of problems.

So in regards to the MNDNR looking for solutions to the problem, here's a tip; the next year you think you can give out doe tags like lollipops, don't. We are massively different from southern states that can sustain shooting mountains of does. We have mountains of snow and bitterly cold winters that can kill a lot of deer quick. We need to error on the side of caution the next time we have a surplus. And keep a little of that surplus around for the next rash of brutal winters or poor fawning seasons.

[nonteepical]

The problem is Basseyes that is to much common sense, they think they are smarter than common sense they went to college to learn this stuff.

[SmellEsox]

Basseyes, I agree with how you think deer should be managed up there. However, I don't agree with you regarding the DNR. I think they are proactive, its just that their goals are way different than hunter's goals. They want few deer and healthy forests over great deer hunting. They don't care if deer numbers are down, it's exactly what they want. They are more ecologists than worried about satisfying deer hunters. JMVHO.

[Basseyes]

SmellEsox,

You are probably right on the DNR's goals.

But with the lack of actual logging going on currently, forest health is a questionable objective. Put that into the mix with how far behind we are to the Scandinavian countries logging and forest management and I call b s on that one.

I do a lot of grouse hunting and the browse lines are fairly isolated in the northern 1/3 of Mn. We have no browse line in our immediate area of 178. There's so much browse left untouched, it could withstand substantially more deer per square mile.

[SmellEsox]

The logging is a tough one, and I don't pretend to understand it. I know when logging used to be common and clearcutting was a typical logging practice, deer and grouse benefited. I would guess that the amount of logging going on is more related to market dynamics than what DNR does regarding timber sales. Unless you think that the DNR should be trying to create demand for timber products somehow????