Deer density vs Quality Deer Management?

[smsmith]

The issue of APR's would likely slowly diminish if we had a reasonably large deer herd. There are no state mandated APR's in Wisconsin, yet year after year they are one of the top (if not the top) States in production of B&C and P&Y bucks. At the same time, they are usually in the top 3 or 4 states in total deer harvested.

All that in a state with pretty similar habitat....and a third smaller than Minnesota.

This isn't rocket science. Get the herd up to 25 dpsm or 50% of the carrying capacity statewide. MN would return to a top 3-5 state in trophy bucks and our total kill would return to the 200-220K range annually.

All it takes is a DNR interested in returning this state to that status...OR a concerted effort by the hunters of this state to do it on their own. It wouldn't matter what the DNR did or didn't do with our deer herd if there were a change in the habits and mindset of the deer hunters of MN. One or the other (or both) is going to be required to make meaningful, lasting change.

[PurpleFloyd]

It is fantastic that you did this for the kids! However, I'm sure, even if those programs were not in place, you would have done everything in your power to get those kids involved because it is a priority for you. I don't think you need special programs or licenses to get kids involved.

[PurpleFloyd]

From the time I started hunting in the 1970's, everyone I knew wanted to shoot a big buck. Things haven't changed as much as you think. And you talk about hunter recruitment, if we indeed want to recruit and retain deer hunters, deer management is going to have to evolve with the younger generation of hunter. At the DNR public input meetings, many of the younger hunters wanted APR. They want something different in their hunting experience. If they don't experience it, they will go somewhere else or quit and do something else. Every hunter I know is a meat hunter whether they target big bucks or any deer. Everyone I know eats what they shoot or they find someone who will eat it.

The children are a reflection of you and if you are never happy or satisfied they will probably adopt that attitude as well. There are more important things to life and hunting than the size of the deer you harvest and the regularity that you are able to harvest a deer like that. I honestly think you are underestimating the kids today and what they are capable of.

[PurpleFloyd]

The issue of APR's would likely slowly diminish if we had a reasonably large deer herd. There are no state mandated APR's in Wisconsin, yet year after year they are one of the top (if not the top) States in production of B&C and P&Y bucks. At the same time, they are usually in the top 3 or 4 states in total deer harvested.

All that in a state with pretty similar habitat....and a third smaller than Minnesota.

This isn't rocket science. Get the herd up to 25 dpsm or 50% of the carrying capacity statewide. MN would return to a top 3-5 state in trophy bucks and our total kill would return to the 200-220K range annually.

All it takes is a DNR interested in returning this state to that status...OR a concerted effort by the hunters of this state to do it on their own. It wouldn't matter what the DNR did or didn't do with our deer herd if there were a change in the habits and mindset of the deer hunters of MN. One or the other (or both) is going to be required to make meaningful, lasting change.

Their habitat is not that similar to ours. It is similar to the Winona/ Red Wing area and they have lots of deer there but nothing in that state resembles anything west of INT 35 in the southern half of the state which is a big part of it. In the far northern part of the state where I used to live and where my in laws live they did not practice APR or any type of management and I remember hunting there in the 80's and 90's where you could harvest 6 deer with all of the bonus tags and there wee still more deer than you could shoot. Every year a few big deer were popped but a heck of a lot of small ones were too and in the 20 plus years since we moved back to the cornfields we consistently shoot bigger deer than the relatives group can harvest up there.

[mntatonka]

Their habitat is not that similar to ours. It is similar to the Winona/ Red Wing area and they have lots of deer there but nothing in that state resembles anything west of INT 35 in the southern half of the state which is a big part of it. In the far northern part of the state where I used to live and where my in laws live they did not practice APR or any type of management and I remember hunting there in the 80's and 90's where you could harvest 6 deer with all of the bonus tags and there wee still more deer than you could shoot. Every year a few big deer were popped but a heck of a lot of small ones were too and in the 20 plus years since we moved back to the cornfields we consistently shoot bigger deer than the relatives group can harvest up there.

And that's what people never understand about the MN/Wi comparisons. Minnesota's terrain flattens out so quick, that it's really only the 50ish miles closest to the border (even closer to the border north of the twin cities) that are anything like Wisconsin. And for the most part, that area still has a lot of deer. Is it as many as Wisconsin? No, but that's a good thing considering these areas already have considerable amounts of complaints about crop damage.

[smsmith]

I lived in WI for 48 years and spent plenty of time in various parts of the state. Been to all the corners and many places side to side as well. You could drop me in my truck most anywhere in WI and I could find my way to somewhere familiar (eventually )

I haven't spent near as much time in MN, but have been to the SE, EC, C, WC, and NE parts of the state. Are there differences in habitat than WI? Of course. Are there many, many similarities? Yep.

MN's deer herd will never compare in size to WI's, that's true. However, we sure could be a heck of a lot closer than we are. Waupaca County and Shawano, WI farmers deal with some of the highest dpsm's (70+ over winter in many areas) in the upper midwest....and they still do very, very well. So do the hunters in those areas on both large bucks and number of does.

I certainly am not advocating for those kinds of densities. However, there is absolutely no reason why most of central MN cannot handle pre-fawn dpsm's of 20-25.

Forgot to add..if you want to see flat check out Wood, Juneau, Adams, Marquette, and Columbia Counties in WI. There are a few hills, but the vast majority of those counties is what used to comprise glacial Lake Wisconsin. It is flat, flat, flat. Soil is some of the sandiest dump you'd ever want to see...and there are 2-4 times the deer there than here.

[SmellEsox]

The children are a reflection of you and if you are never happy or satisfied they will probably adopt that attitude as well. There are more important things to life and hunting than the size of the deer you harvest and the regularity that you are able to harvest a deer like that. I honestly think you are underestimating the kids today and what they are capable of.

You are right. My kids are very happy, good natured, and satisfied with their lives. I am the same way. Nowhere did I say that I think they should be entitled to harvest something every year. And I don't think they would have that expectation either. It would help to see more. Not even every hunt, but more than once in 8-10 trips. Its great your kids have great attitudes about hunting and you've taught them the right way. You say one of your boys didn't get a turkey in the first few years he hunted. Did he see some the years he didn't harvest one? You like pheasant hunting even when it is bad. That is great. But would you still go if you hunted everyday and your dogs never picked up a scent 9 out of 10 times that you went? Believe me, I am a patient man. I can sit for days and see little and still maintain my intensity and have a great time. I waterfowl hunt and have stared at empty skies way more often than you can imagine. I muskie fish and have gone many days without seeing a fish. There is always something outdoors worth seeing even if I'm being unsuccessful at what I am pursuing. But for a kid, there is only so much of that they can absorb before they want to see the real thing. Or else there is something else out there that will capture their attention and be a more desirable option, whether it is a video game, hockey, baseball, football, or golf.

[PurpleFloyd]

Article from the fish wrap west:

http://www.startribune.com/local/255894051.html?page=1&c=y

Quote:

Minnesota’s deer czar, Leslie McInenly, knows that for a lot of hunters there can never be enough deer.

“It’s like me and chocolate,’’ she said.

But as the state launches a three-year process to reset its deer population — the first in nearly a decade — deer hunters won’t be the only ones at the table. There also will be white, red and jack pines, orchids and other wildflowers and all the species that depend on them.

The likely increased numbers of Minnesota’s favorite game animal will come at the peril of the state’s beloved pine trees and the native plants, insects and animals that live below them on the forest floor.

The state’s deer population exploded starting in the late 1990s, and, due largely to recent harsh winters, has since declined somewhat. But study after study shows that browsing by overabundant deer herds is crushing the biodiversity of northern and eastern forests. The threat they pose, say some forest ecologists, is greater than climate change.

It’s a problem seen throughout the United States.

“We’ve already got more deer than the land can support,” said Gary Alt, a wildlife biologist now based in California who reduced Pennsylvania’s deer population to curtail the destruction of plant life that was harming that state’s $7 billion forest industry.

“If anything, it’s getting worse,” said Brian Palik, research ecologist for the U.S. Forest Service in Grand Rapids.

Mark Johnson, executive director of the Minnesota Deer Hunters Association, said doubling the number would not be too much in some areas. Most hunters believe the state went “quite a ways” too far in lowering the population the last time around, he said.

“We are definitely at a low ebb,’’ Johnson said.

In the Arrowhead region, timber mill operator Jack Rajala has a different perspective on how many deer are enough. After years of fighting deer, he’s finally seeing low-enough numbers where browsing isn’t a problem for his young trees. Since the 1980s deer have eaten 1 million young white pines on his property even though the numbers in his part of the state are lower than many other areas. He learned to protect new seedlings with bud caps — paper scraps stapled to the trees’ leading growth stems. Even with lower densities, capping the seedlings is a necessity for about the first five years, until they are beyond deers’ reach.“If you bring the herd back up, it will hurt the conifers,’’ said Rajala, who wrote the 1998 book “Bringing Back the White Pine.’’

Mark White, a forest biologist for the Nature Conservancy, said he’s demonstrated what a deer-free forest can look like by fencing them out of a large plot of woods on the North Shore. Inside is thick, lush plant life and healthy young trees. Outside, the forest floor is sparsely vegetated, with few trees.

“It’s so well studied, there’s really no debate,’’ said White, who asserts that too many deer — not climate change — pose the biggest threat to forests in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan and farther east.

Gary Alt, the biologist who was appointed by Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge to decrease deer herds, said the story is similar in nearly every big deer hunting state. Hunters overprotect female deer to increase fawn production, multiplying their chances of shooting a buck. As the herd increases, they get used to seeing a lot of deer and then revolt when game managers try to lower populations.

Too much content in there but it does have perspectives from different groups.