Deer are worse than global warming

[swamptiger]

Most of the pine was cut long before chainsaws existed. But deer were not abundant in the pine forests either.

[BLACKJACK]

Helps shed light on just one of the various parties the DNR has to consider when managing the deer herd. Certainly not an easy task.

Here's the key from the whole article, even though we as deer hunters don't agree with it, the tree growers will have a seat at the table and the DNR will have to listen to what they've got to say.

[yakfisher]

Here is an article many of you may have already read, it speaks to the politics of deer management.

http://www.fieldandstream.com/articles/hunting/2013/10/dirty-politics-deer-management

[CANOPY SAM]

Deet. Mr.Rajala, his family, and his operation, are all around your neck of the woods. I know the family, and personally, I find them to be very nice people. They've worked hard, and invested millions to replant the northern forests to maintain the future of the logging industry.

There's really no doubt that the whitetail deer herd has been a thorn in his side with wiping out whole sections of seedlings he's planted. But there's also no doubt that he's received ample insurance payments for the trees and labor that were wiped out by the deer. But that's not the point. The point is, for him at least, it's getting harder to protect his investments with a growing deer population.

He's going to bring a really BIG chip to the table as a millionaire landowner, who's primary business is constantly threatened by a larger deer herd.

But in this case, I couldn't agree more that a blanket, state-wide policy won't do much to help everyone. This issue needs to be addressed zone by zone, and region by region.

[lichen fox]

It would be an interesting roundtable to sit in on....Loggers and Dnr Forestry managers on ones side....Deer Hunters and Dnr Wildlife managers on the other side...insurance companys and "enviromentalists" in between...

Perhaps they could just use the same methodology they use for "disease" mangement....designate a "special zone" where the problem exists and open it up to year round hunting till they solve the problem!

[hockeybc69]

If you know them, do you know what they do to thin the deer that plague his investments? Or is his land off limits and just a big refuge to the deer?

I dont want to hear he has a problem and is not willing to address the issue in some fashion. I understand he cant micro manage his deer population, but he surely could help himself without telling the state there are just too many deer so please help him.

[Getanet]

It would be an interesting roundtable to sit in on....Loggers and Dnr Forestry managers on ones side....Deer Hunters and Dnr Wildlife managers on the other side...insurance companys and "enviromentalists" in between...

Perhaps they could just use the same methodology they use for "disease" mangement....designate a "special zone" where the problem exists and open it up to year round hunting till they solve the problem!

I envision the DNR Wildlife Managers more like an octopus, with hunters, loggers/foresters, farmers, insurance companies and probably a few other interested parties I'm forgetting all pulling in separate directions.

[CANOPY SAM]

I can't really say I know he's even capable of "managing" his deer herd. He owns thousands of acres of deep, old growth woodlands. I'm sure that there are members of his family that hunt, but the number of deer they could harvest as a family wouldn't likely put a scratch on the surface of the problem.

I'd be surprised to find his land is posted. I'm guessing it's all open to public hunting, but I could be wrong. Either way, we're talking about miles and miles of deep woodlands. It's tough to get many deer out of there.

Again, this is an issue that needs to be addressed on a zone by zone basis. The topography of each respective area will dictate a different management strategy. Some areas that are primarily agricultural will be reasonably easy to manage, while other areas that are heavily wooded for countless miles will be extremely difficult to manage.

[PurpleFloyd]

I can't really say I know he's even capable of "managing" his deer herd. He owns thousands of acres of deep, old growth woodlands. I'm sure that there are members of his family that hunt, but the number of deer they could harvest as a family wouldn't likely put a scratch on the surface of the problem.

I'd be surprised to find his land is posted. I'm guessing it's all open to public hunting, but I could be wrong. Either way, we're talking about miles and miles of deep woodlands. It's tough to get many deer out of there.

Again, this is an issue that needs to be addressed on a zone by zone basis. The topography of each respective area will dictate a different management strategy. Some areas that are primarily agricultural will be reasonably easy to manage, while other areas that are heavily wooded for countless miles will be extremely difficult to manage.

When you own that much land then it becomes a matter of liability and it is harder to let the average joe in there to hunt because if they get hurt or someone gets shot it could put his whole business and property in jeopardy.

[Pinusbanksiana]

Deer browse is a serious issue just like the article states. Just go look at anyones woodlot around areas where people feed all winter. No understory, shrubs or trees. Most people like that look however, and don't have an ecological aesthetic eye. They are missing the bigger picture.

[swamptiger]

Quote:

When you own that much land then it becomes a matter of liability and it is harder to let the average joe in there to hunt because if they get hurt or someone gets shot it could put his whole business and property in jeopardy.

I don't think there's much of a precedent for that when you're talking about timberlands. Not that I'm aware of, anyway. Business establishments are another thing.

[Pinusbanksiana]

Those Rajalas are like a pack of timber wolves, the eat a lot of deer.

[hockeybc69]

Quote:

Deer browse is a serious issue just like the article states

Sure, in isolated areas. Show me a browse line in not even 1% of the state and I would be shocked.

[Pinusbanksiana]

I can take you any place in the state and show it to you. It is actually part of my job to identify it and record it. I will gladly take you out. I guarantee I will open your eyes.

[hockeybc69]

Not buying it.

Sure, there is browsing. I can show you browsing on our property too.

Big difference in browsing and complete utter destruction of the understory of forests.

[smsmith]

Heck...I plant stuff for it be browsed on purpose....and most of it is not

[btheturkey]

DNR is king at rhetoric and media manipulation.

MN Hunters suck at making their voice heard. And the herd is suffering because of it.

MNBowhunters.org has info on 2 meetings next week to change that. Cambridge and Little Falls. Show up if you are a man or woman of action.

[Pinusbanksiana]

So toss science out the window and listen to JimBob the carpet layer. Ok I see where this is going. I guess I'll bow out to you "experts". Go ahead and discuss what you think you know instead of asking questions and learning.

[CANOPY SAM]

I just ran the quick math, and Minnesota has approximately 86,000 sq. miles of land. When the deer population was estimated to be at it's peak, 1.1 million animals, that equates to a maximum of 12.7 deer per sq. mile of land.

Now I completely understand that these population estimates are concentrated in far fewer square miles then the total mileage available in Minnesota, and at that, even more concentrated in areas that actually support favorable living conditions for white-tailed deer.

I guess what I'm trying to get my mind around is just what is the maximum "carrying capacity" of the average chunk of white-tail habitat? I have kind of a hard time believing that even 20 deer per square mile could do that much irreversible damage. A square mile is a pretty big chunk of land.

How many cattle can a single square mile support without supplemental feed? That probably isn't an applicable question, but I'm just curious.

Honestly though, doesn't one have to look back on what happened prior to our intervention in nature? This country once thrived with huge stands of old growth Red and White Pine. How did they successfully procreate without our help? Logging did way more damage then deer ever did.

I'm just thinking out loud. I can't even guess at an answer. I think nature finds a way, whether we intervene or not.

[smsmith]

So toss science out the window and listen to JimBob the carpet layer. Ok I see where this is going. I guess I'll bow out to you "experts". Go ahead and discuss what you think you know instead of asking questions and learning.

Okay Jackpine...please educate all of us carpet layers

[Bureaucrat]

Throughout history there was disturbance. There is no more disturbance, at least on a grand scale. When a forest fire would wipe out 100s of square miles, the critters couldn't eat all the regrowth fast enough. Now when you carve out a 40 here and an 80 there, of course all the deer will concentrate there because there is no other disturbance to create new ground food and cover.

I have a solution. The author can come to my property and trap all the dogs and wolves he wants and relocate them to his land. They do a great job of keeping deer away from our newly planted trees.

[Pinusbanksiana]

I know better than to engage here, it will only lead to ill feelings and resentment. I don't want that.

[smsmith]

I know better than to engage here, it will only lead to ill feelings and resentment. I don't want that.

Well Jeepers...you slam us for being rubes and then don't set us straight. Can't have it both ways.

I certainly don't want to imply that deer don't have an impact on certain flora. However, browse lines (from deer anyway) are far from common in the areas of central MN I frequent. Heck, I've got trilliums all over my place. If you have trilliums...you don't have many deer. Browse lines from cattle in central MN...absolutely common. I've seen plenty of browse lines in NE MN, mainly along the north shore. Get further "in land" and those browse lines become much less common.

I'm pretty sure we can find a balance between keeping deer hunters, farmers, and foresters all happy. MI does it with a herd at least twice what we have. So does PA. WI does it with a herd much larger than ours as well (in a state a third smaller).

[swamptiger]

Quote:

Honestly though, doesn't one have to look back on what happened prior to our intervention in nature? This country once thrived with huge stands of old growth Red and White Pine. How did they successfully procreate without our help? Logging did way more damage then deer ever did.

There were very few deer before the pine was cut. They didn't get abundant until after the pine was cut. The early logging companies typically burned the slash, and different species like aspen and balsam came up in place of the pine. Before the pine was cut, it was mostly moose and woodland caribou.

At least in northern MN. The hardwood belt further south was probably different.

So the logging did more to help the deer than anything. At the expense of the moose and caribou.

[Pinusbanksiana]

PA has a HUGE deer problem. They need to fence off areas of oak regeneration to stock their forests. At a huge expense. I have toured sites in PA numerous times and I can see the trouble they have to grow trees. http://www.upenn.edu/paflora/id13.htm

We are headed in that direction