Deer density vs Quality Deer Management?

[Wanderer]

You said license money doesnt all go to the DNR.

The links you posted are DNR related links.....

So if all license money doesnt go to the DNR, who else gets a slice outside of the DNR?

In years past I was informed the license money went into the General Fund and a fraction of the cost of a deer license went toward deer management. That would've been a more accurate statement to make rather than it doesn't go to the DNR. The point I was trying to make was that 100% of he money taken in on deer licenses doesn't go to deer management.

I haven't looked deep into the links I posted yet but will when I have time. I see they stopped funding salaries FROM the General Fund in 2008, making them self supported from the programs. Feel free to read up on the particulars; I posted the links for everyone to do some research if they wanted.

[hockeybc69]

Quote:

The point I was trying to make was that 100% of he money taken in on deer licenses doesn't go to deer management.

Absolutely agreed.

[Jameson]

Quote:

Adding APRs and increasing antlerless harvest will give you more bucks for a short time. Eventually you will have fewer. It stands to reason in an already declining population, if you are killing more does and button bucks, eventually you will have fewer of everything. You have to allow the population to increase prior to putting APRs on. You have to have does to produce bucks. APRs puts more pressure on does, button bucks and doe fawns.

Fewer than what?

Fewer than we had before? agreed.

Fewer than we have now? nope.

An antlerless lottery cures the added pressure added by APR's.

[PurpleFloyd]

That would essentially require a lottery system similar to the Turkey season where you have to be drawn to shoot anything. In areas where the population and pressure are such that it is the only way to regenerate the population then I could get behind it(lottery for any antlered deer,not point specific)But in the areas where the pressure/population do not need to have that type of regulation then I would not be on board with it.

[SmellEsox]

Fewer than what?

Fewer than we had before? agreed.

Fewer than we have now? nope.

An antlerless lottery cures the added pressure added by APR's.

How much public support do you think there will be for APR if we also go to lottery. People would be mad and APR would get a black eye. You have to build the population first before you go to APR. If meat hunters don't have any deer to shoot, they will rise up big against APR. You have to have enough deer out there to satisfy both meat hunters and guys that want better bucks otherwise APRs won't fly. If you want APR longterm, you better have enough deer on the landscape. Personally I don't care either way, but a lot of people who don't want their freedoms taken away with more regulation will fight you.

[Getanet]

Yes, APRs combined with a doe lottery seems like a very questionable strategy. You would essentially be making bucks with 4-pts on one side the only deer in the woods that is able to be shot. So IMHO you'd get a double-whammy...almost all of the pressure on mature bucks and more than likely a very negative first-impression of APRs to people on the fence or against it.

Actually, let's go for it. I'd take one year of terrible hunting in order for the discussion of APR to be wiped off the map for a decade or two.

[nonteepical]

Thing is guys the DNR is only going to build the herd to the current set densities, wich are at goal right now, or at least were at goal last season before the harsh winter. The herd building is only going to cover what was lost over this past winter, when they feel they have reached the densities, 10-15 deer per square mile or whatever your hunting area is set at, then the doe permits are handed out like candy again to maintain the herd at the set density. Arguing APR, QDM ect. isn't the problem low deer density goals is the problem. The deer density goals need to be raised.

[hockeybc69]

Nailed it Nonteep.....

[PurpleFloyd]

But along with increasing the goals for population there needs to be the habitat available in the ares where the population is increased to allow them to sustain themselves so that we do not have big kills during bad weather. They need food and shelter and hopefully that is something that can be agreed on.

[laker1]

But along with increasing the goals for population there needs to be the habitat available in the ares where the population is increased to allow them to sustain themselves so that we do not have big kills during bad weather. They need food and shelter and hopefully that is something that can be agreed on.

I agree, you go across much of north central Minnesota where there are not huge chunks of public land you see over the years from us old timers how 160's were divided to 80's than 40's acre plots as the trend continues with more houses being built.ma and pa keep sud dividing their land for their kids.

I think hunting and quality is going to change downward for much of Minnesota.

[smsmith]

But along with increasing the goals for population there needs to be the habitat available in the ares where the population is increased to allow them to sustain themselves so that we do not have big kills during bad weather. They need food and shelter and hopefully that is something that can be agreed on.

No doubt about it, no habitat...no deer. That said, most of the areas I've seen in Todd, Ottertail, Morrison, Stearns, and Mille Lacs counties (others too, those are the just counties I'm most familiar with) could handle 100% more deer than we currently have with the existing habitat. Are there are areas within those counties that couldn't handle that kind of increase? Of course. However, there are many, many more areas that could.

Most of the areas I mentioned are below or very near the densities WI was attempting to manage their CWD zone for (never even got close). There is no reason on earth to have 7.2 dpsm in the Buckman area. There is no reason on earth to have around 10 dpsm in the Long Prairie/Pillsbury area.

WSI is a minor consideration in most of these areas by the DNR (isn't Little Falls the farthest south point where it is considered?)

[SmellEsox]

But along with increasing the goals for population there needs to be the habitat available in the ares where the population is increased to allow them to sustain themselves so that we do not have big kills during bad weather. They need food and shelter and hopefully that is something that can be agreed on.

That may be true where you hunt, but in most of my area, the habitat is fine to support twice as many deer.

[PurpleFloyd]

If the habitat is so good right now then why was there all the panic about feeding deer and how the deer were going to be decimated by the weather we had? Not looking for any type of peeing match as the deer around here were and are fine, but there are 7 threads on this topic alone on the first page of the forum. So either there is not enough habitat to sustain the herd or there were a lot of people who were very wrong and were sensationalizing the situation.

[smsmith]

If the habitat is so good right now then why was there all the panic about feeding deer and how the deer were going to be decimated by the weather we had? Not looking for any type of peeing match as the deer around here were and are fine, but there are 7 threads on this topic alone on the first page of the forum. So either there is not enough habitat to sustain the herd or there were a lot of people who were very wrong and were sensationalizing the situation.

I fed deer this year, not so much because I thought they were going to die...but more so to attempt to insure that mature does drop twins rather than one or none.

Most of what I saw here and elsewhere about feeding was in northern MN...where winter was truly a life and death matter. This was the second coldest winter on record in central MN for the last 114 years. I can only imagine what winter was (heck, still is) like in the northern 1/4 or 1/3 of the state.

[SmellEsox]

If the habitat is so good right now then why was there all the panic about feeding deer and how the deer were going to be decimated by the weather we had? Not looking for any type of peeing match as the deer around here were and are fine, but there are 7 threads on this topic alone on the first page of the forum. So either there is not enough habitat to sustain the herd or there were a lot of people who were very wrong and were sensationalizing the situation.

We lost deer in our area. It is going to happen in a winter that was the 2nd most brutal in the last 100+ years. I don't care how great the quality of the deer habitat is, you are going to lose fawns in this type of winter. The problem is that the deer that are most likely to survive a tough winter are being over-harvested and that is adult does. Yes in an ideal world every landowner in MN would improve their habitat. The odds of even 20% of landowners doing an adequate job of this? 0%. But we can have more deer and our habitat is just fine to support more deer except in the most sever winters. In 95 out of 100 winters in central MN, we will lose very few deer.

[Wanderer]

I agree, you go across much of north central Minnesota where there are not huge chunks of public land you see over the years from us old timers how 160's were divided to 80's than 40's acre plots as the trend continues with more houses being built.ma and pa keep sud dividing their land for their kids.

I think hunting and quality is going to change downward for much of Minnesota.

Here's one for ya. Enjoy. I will.

[zepman]

The deer will be fine...it may take a few years of recovery...but natural selection will take over and the deer #'s will eventually return.

[smsmith]

The deer will be fine...it may take a few years of recovery...but natural selection will take over and the deer #'s will eventually return.

Deer numbers will return with more moderate winters...AND if the number of antlerless permits sold are reduced significantly. Without that...we will remain about where we are. If that's the case, we all better get used to total harvests around 145-170(max)K

[PurpleFloyd]

I agree that the state should never be letting hunters shoot 5 deer a year through bonus tags etc. I actually think we should have to pick one season and only buy a license for that particular season. That would eliminate a lot of the pressure and let the herd stabilize without changing things for the the average hunter.

1 Deer

1 Hunt

per year.

[smsmith]

I agree that the state should never be letting hunters shoot 5 deer a year through bonus tags etc. I actually think we should have to pick one season and only buy a license for that particular season. That would eliminate a lot of the pressure and let the herd stabilize without changing things for the the average hunter.

1 Deer

1 Hunt

per year.

I could get on board with that concept...I already have that self-imposed "rule" anyway. I guess I'd add that if a hunter bought an archery license and didn't fill it, they should be allowed to buy a firearm license. If they didn't fill that they could go back to using the archery or buy a muzzy license...but still..only one deer could be taken. How anybody can in good conscience take more than one deer in most of MN is beyond my comprehension (please note - I said "most of MN", I'm sure there's somewhere that taking two may be okay)

[Jameson]

1 deer (most everywhere)

1 hunt (archery,firearm,muzzy)

and this year

1 area.

This would totally mess with my normal hunt, but think it may be necessary. Pick your area (285 or whatever) and hunt only there. Should stop the tagging of an antlerless deer in 2 deer area that was shot in a 1 deer area.

[SmellEsox]

I agree that the state should never be letting hunters shoot 5 deer a year through bonus tags etc. I actually think we should have to pick one season and only buy a license for that particular season. That would eliminate a lot of the pressure and let the herd stabilize without changing things for the the average hunter.

1 Deer

1 Hunt

per year.

I could go along with that. Makes a lot of sense, and I think that is the way it used to be back in the early 90's wasn't it?

[mntatonka]

I agree that the state should never be letting hunters shoot 5 deer a year through bonus tags etc. I actually think we should have to pick one season and only buy a license for that particular season. That would eliminate a lot of the pressure and let the herd stabilize without changing things for the the average hunter.

1 Deer

1 Hunt

per year.

what difference does it make if you hunt multiple seasons? you can still only tag the number of deer available in the area you hunt. You can never tag more than one deer in a lottery/hunter's choice area, regardless of how many seasons you hunt. There's no sense in limiting hunter opportunity.

[smsmith]

This would totally mess with my normal hunt, but think it may be necessary. Pick your area (285 or whatever) and hunt only there. Should stop the tagging of an antlerless deer in 2 deer area that was shot in a 1 deer area.

At least one local CO has shared that this is a real issue in 221. Hunters in adjacent units (heck any unit for that matter) will register their deer as being taken in 221 (Intensive...with 7.2 dpsm per the aerial survey this winter) so they can keep hunting.

Get rid of the Intensive designation all together. IMHO the only time Intensive should be used again is if we're dealing with CWD or bTB

[mntatonka]

At least one local CO has shared that this is a real issue in 221. Hunters in adjacent units (heck any unit for that matter) will register their deer as being taken in 221 (Intensive...with 7.2 dpsm per the aerial survey this winter) so they can keep hunting.

Get rid of the Intensive designation all together. IMHO the only time Intensive should be used again is if we're dealing with CWD or bTB

or, when areas are at double what the goal is set at by the advisory committee, and there are indeed areas that are double what's recommended.