MN deer hunters

[smsmith]

Had some discussion with a few fellow deer hunters last weekend and the topic of the 2014 total deer harvest came up. I'm guessing right around 140,000....just for kicks let's see your guesses.

Looks a fair number of views and no guesses...just for reference, last year's kill was just short of 173,000, 2012 was just short of 187,000, 2011 was just over 192,000 and our record kill was 290,525 in 2003 (take all those numbers with a grain of salt though...pretty sure the DNR manipulates/edits harvest numbers).

[smsmith]

84 views and no guesses....just trying to have a little fun and open up a discussion....

[SmellEsox]

165,000. And the decline will be attributed to fewer antlerless permits given.

[Jameson]

...the decline will be attributed to fewer antlerless permits given.

and the harshness of this past winter.

Nothing will be noted of the steady downward trend that has been seen for plenty of years and how the fewer antlerless permit game should have been started 1-? years ago.

123,456

[sportfish]

147,166 I will guess . There will be a lot less doe tags this year . I still see a lot of deer in my area

[Getanet]

168,861

[laker1]

The numbers are not manipulated,maybe not as high or low as we wanted it.

Look we all including me says we were over harvesting,so if the kill is lower,some of that is what we asked for. Expect a moderate harvest. Wonder how many people who shoot 3-4 deer a year lately will control themselves. Some won't and will find ways to keep going.

Went to a meeting by the county I live in and you can see foresters etc. are a big influence on deer density quota's.

[harvey lee]

It will greatly depend on doe tags. The deer in my area seemed to come through pretty good for as hard of a winter as we had this past winter.

I see the numbers about the same for this fall unless the DNR cuts the tags way back.

My trail cameras have had a lot of deer photos. As many or maybe more than last summer.

155,000.

[smsmith]

The numbers are not manipulated,maybe not as high or low as we wanted it.

I don't have the information at my fingertips, but the harvest numbers are indeed "adjusted" after the fact. Looking through historical data on a unit by unit basis the DNR numbers change.

[MNHunter65]

I'll say 175,000. From what I have seen, the deer in my area made it through the winter in pretty good shape. Lots of trail cam pics of does with twins.

[smsmith]

From what I have seen, the deer in my area made it through the winter in pretty good shape. Lots of trail cam pics of does with twins.

Interesting, I've seen just the opposite. I run 4-6 cams on 87 acres and have 1 fawn pic so far this year. I pulled two cards today off my salt/mineral sites and had zero fawn pics. The does on cam look to be in very good shape, which is unusual for this time of year when they're nursing.

[ANYFISH2]

I am going to say that even with an expected reduction in doe permits I think our harvest will be slightly higher around 180,000. If it lower than last year I will view it as a good thing. As I do not think the pop will be much different than last fall.

[mntatonka]

The numbers are not manipulated,maybe not as high or low as we wanted it.

[smsmith]

Given the fact that the MN DNR has already stated that Intensive and Managed will be rare/non-existent and that in much of the northern third of the state it will be buck only....I'm struggling to see how our kill could be higher than last year. I suppose if there's a heck of a crop of bucks out there and the harvest is composed of 80%+ antlered bucks it could be possible.

[Getanet]

Are the numbers being manipulated in an attempt to be more accurate, or to deceive? I would believe it's to be more accurate.

If you really want to get into the weeds, the harvest numbers are never going to be 100% accurate as not everyone registers the deer they shoot. It's not supposed to be that way, but we all know it happens whether intentionally or not.

[smsmith]

Are the numbers being manipulated in an attempt to be more accurate, or to deceive? I would believe it's to be more accurate.

I would have believed that a few years ago too....I now believe the manipulations are done in order to reinforce the model's accuracy/defendability

[Getanet]

I guess you're more of a conspiracy theorist than me. Hunters talk. There is a general consensus if the hunting was good or poor in any given year. I doubt they would be able to get away with "cooking the books" enough to make the effort worthwhile or worth the fallout if they were caught intentionally misleading the public.

The harvest numbers are a gauge, a pretty accurate gauge, but nobody can say exactly how many deer were harvested.

[smsmith]

Probably. 500K+ hunters don't talk...and really have no way to gauge what's harvested here except the DNR's harvest total. I can't tell you how many guys I've spoken with the last 6 months or so who said "I thought I was just having bad hunting the last 4-5 years". Hunters look at the harvest total and read the DNR press releases....and that's largely how opinions of "success" or "failure" are gauged here.

Who would ever catch them cooking the books? Seems to me until the MDDI was formed no effort has been made to even go over the DNR data.

I don't care about "exact" numbers, but do/would find it quite troubling to find out that data gets "massaged" so that the model the DNR is using continues to just keep being used without question.

One way to find out if you or I are correct...an external audit of the model and the DNR's data. Conspiracy either debunked or shown to be at least partially accurate.

[ANYFISH2]

Given the fact that the MN DNR has already stated that Intensive and Managed will be rare/non-existent and that in much of the northern third of the state it will be buck only....I'm struggling to see how our kill could be higher than last year. I suppose if there's a heck of a crop of bucks out there and the harvest is composed of 80%+ antlered bucks it could be possible.

My thought comes from the fact that less than half of our 500,000 hunters shoot a deer, any deer. And I hold the thought that the average successful hunter in an managed or intensive area doesn't average more than one.

Now I fully understand party hunting and some hunters like my self shoot some deer that their party tags. This will be more prevalent now with more lotto and hunters choice areas. Instead of the few tagging 2,3, 4, or 5 deer under thier own license, those deer will just be tagged by accompanying party members.

If the deer are there they will be shot.

How did we ever kill 220,000 in 1992 with lotto and bucks only state wide? I am quite sure our population of deer was not that much higher then. I see more deer now, than back in the 1990's, far less than the early to mid 2000's.

Stu, just my opinion, I am still with you in the goal of increasing populations and widening opportunities.

[SmellEsox]

Given the fact that the MN DNR has already stated that Intensive and Managed will be rare/non-existent and that in much of the northern third of the state it will be buck only....I'm struggling to see how our kill could be higher than last year. I suppose if there's a heck of a crop of bucks out there and the harvest is composed of 80%+ antlered bucks it could be possible.

I think it is possible. A lot of the firearm harvest occurs on the first two days of the season. Because hunting conditions were bad those days last year, it is possible there are more deer out there than last year's harvest indicated. I don't believe it, but it is possible. Also, hunting up north was bad last year, so bad hunting up there this year probably won't effect deer harvest totals that much.

I've been seeing a lot of deer around Little Falls this spring/early summer. More than I expected to see. I haven't seen many fawns though so either they are hiding in the amazingly tall grass this year, or they never were born. I haven't seen many bucks either.

My thought is that it will be down slightly from last year statewide. There will be fewer fawns shot and fewer does shot. The interesting thing will be buck harvest as more pressure will be put on bucks this year if way fewer antlerless tags are sold. Around Little Falls, I expect harvest to be very similar to the past 10 years. Harvest is amazingly consistent around here.

[smsmith]

My thought comes from the fact that less than half of our 500,000 hunters shoot a deer, any deer. And I hold the thought that the average successful hunter in an managed or intensive area doesn't average more than one.

Now I fully understand party hunting and some hunters like my self shoot some deer that their party tags. This will be more prevalent now with more lotto and hunters choice areas. Instead of the few tagging 2,3, 4, or 5 deer under thier own license, those deer will just be tagged by accompanying party members.

If the deer are there they will be shot.

How did we ever kill 220,000 in 1992 with lotto and bucks only state wide? I am quite sure our population of deer was not that much higher then. I see more deer now, than back in the 1990's, far less than the early to mid 2000's.

Stu, just my opinion, I am still with you in the goal of increasing populations and widening opportunities.

I certainly didn't mean to offend...my apologies if I did.

I have no idea how that many more deer were shot in 1992 than in 2013...except if there were more deer on the landscape (State as a whole) at that time. Obviously, since that time habitat in many areas of MN has degraded significantly.

You and some of the others' guessing as high as you are may well be correct...and you are certainly correct about "if the deer are there they will be shot"....unless hunters take it upon themselves to start exercising some trigger control.

[smsmith]

Around Little Falls, I expect harvest to be very similar to the past 10 years. Harvest is amazingly consistent around here.

I attribute that "fact" to the guy who compiles the numbers for our area

[ANYFISH2]

Oh gosh, no offense taken. Just giving oppinions and guesses, trying to contribute to the conversation.

I agree, us hunters have more control over our future then we realize.

I will also admit to being part of the problem, my intent is to fill my bow tag every season, but I consistantly pass on small bucks and chose to shoot a doe as I have yet to shoot a "shooter" buck in 16 seasons. Come rifle season, it is deer camp, and our group of 4-6 hunters typically shoot 2-3 deer (never have we shot 4) and that is shooting the first deer that presents a very high percentage shot, not choosie on size at all. We are just now beginning to see enough deer per season (save for last season) to think about waiting for the "right" deer. But two of us only hunt 2-3 days a season so they will be less likely to be choosy.

Now my philosophy is changing as I get older and spent more time in the woods from sept-early dec. I am confident I can shoot a deer every year, now I am more focused on shooting the "right" deer for where I am hunting. As well as improving my hunting grounds to give me and hunting partners more opportunities to chose from.

[Getanet]

Probably. 500K+ hunters don't talk...and really have no way to gauge what's harvested here except the DNR's harvest total. I can't tell you how many guys I've spoken with the last 6 months or so who said "I thought I was just having bad hunting the last 4-5 years". Hunters look at the harvest total and read the DNR press releases....and that's largely how opinions of "success" or "failure" are gauged here.

Who would ever catch them cooking the books? Seems to me until the MDDI was formed no effort has been made to even go over the DNR data.

I don't care about "exact" numbers, but do/would find it quite troubling to find out that data gets "massaged" so that the model the DNR is using continues to just keep being used without question.

One way to find out if you or I are correct...an external audit of the model and the DNR's data. Conspiracy either debunked or shown to be at least partially accurate.

One thing most hunters, at least the ones I know, do talk about is hunting. That's the one subject they do gossip about. Heck, by the time we're finished washing dishes on Opening night one of the guys in my party has texted with half the county and knows which camps did well, which ones didn't, and who got the big one.

As for who would catch them cooking the books - I would argue the same way politicians get caught - the press and Internet platforms that allow outdoorsmen to share information. The Outdoors section of the Strib, Pioneer Press, Outdoor News, HSO Forums, yadda yadda yadda have all being pretty vocal about the lower harvests over the past few years.

And if they are reading the DNR press releases or looking at the Harvest Reports, the DNR isn't claiming it's been a banner season. Sure, they're not all gloom and doom either, but the headline of the DNR's press release after Opening Weekend last year was "Firearm Harvest Down 8% from 2012." And the bar graphs on the Harvest Reports are pretty easy to read, they aren't going up.

The models they use, particularly when determining current population totals and harvest goals, could very well be broken. But the harvest totals the DNR is and has reported doesn't seem that far out of line with what you hear "on the street."

[smsmith]

Thank you for contributing to the discussion....its been pretty slow around here lately