MN deer hunters

[LandDr]

That's a great idea! Hadn't thought of that. I will see what I can do...one of my employees knows how to do video shoots and will be at Game Fair this weekend.

Probably be too nervous with the camera and choke! LOL

[hockeybc69]

How tall is your fence???

We don't have 60-70 dpsm up there(or per 5 sq miles according to the DNR)... So how I would keep number like that or half of that on 120 acres is beyond me. I need some koolaid!!!!!

Seriously though, I suppose its possible, but after planting nearly 10,000 conifers over the last 10 years, 6-8 acres of food plots annually, 15 acres of wetlands, NWSG plantings..... I just don't understand what else can be done to make that number of deer stay within a half mile of us.... much less on the property and never leave to go get the air let out of them on neighboring lands.....

[LandDr]

Ha...that's funny.

Deer are no different than humans when it comes to what you like or what you want.

Girls like wine, crackers, dips and other girls to socialize with.

Boys like girls.

Therefore, does like food, cover, water, bedding, etc. and they will only go as far as needed for these resources. I call them the "Doe Bed & Breakfast". The more intense the B&B, the smaller the home range...the smaller the home range, the more doe groups...the more doe groups, the more dominant bucks. I call that "The Ladies Night"...serve drink specials to the ladies and the boys show up. More girls in the group holds the boys there better so they don't go to the other bar (across the property line in other words). And so on and so on.

You can do a lot of 120 acres!

[LandDr]

My plan and designs require 20 to 30 percent food...and that is "per doe home range". Therefore 120 acres would be 24 to 36 acres of food scattered through the property in the doe home ranges. But it also has to be the right food sources. Then also put a kiddie pool, plastic down or something to provide a water source in each B&B.

You planted conifers...spruce or pine?

Trees take time to grow so there are other things you need to do in the meantime to "thicken up" your B&B until the trees start providing the thermal cover to increase the carrying capacity.

NWSG are great, but what was the mix and what percentages? There are good and bad. NWSG also need to be managed with fire...if you are not going to burn, then don't plant them. Go with thick plantings of dogwood, willow, plum, etc. If you have heavy ground...put some Phragmites in these locations as well to thicken it up.

If you can see through your property...deer are not going to stay there. That is a "travel through" property...rather than "attract and hold". The other day my son said, "Dad, I don't see any deer out at the farm." I smiled and pointed, "What made all of these tracks then!".

The center area of the farm literally smells like Tinks #69!

[hockeybc69]

I had a private forester out to the property on Saturday to get an updated Stewardship plan.

He couldn't commend enough on the things we have done on the property and was thoroughly impressed.

His initial thoughts are to get our buckthorn in check(again), clear cut a couple areas of oaks to bring some age diversity to the oak stand on the property, thin some areas of mature oaks to improve the canopy to improve individual mast production and beyond that not much other change.

The biggest factor that he said that I was already very well aware of..... it takes a lot of time and effort..

There are individual properties located in areas that can do much more than individual properties in other areas. Luck of the draw maybe?

What is this seminar going to show me that we haven't done already? I am a skeptic by nature.

I have been through every agency and done every project possible to date.... And we will continue to expand on everything we have done.

[smsmith]

So to implement your design plan I'd need to log off, bring a dozer with a root rake and a backhoe in, then hire a skidsteer with a rock bucket each spring for perpetuity, probably drain some of my swamps/marshes, and eventually get to planting 17.5 - 26 of my 87 acres?

Not a realistic design plan for me, sorry. To get the land to that point it would cost 10's of thousands in equipment time and to plant/fertilize/lime that many acres every year would be cost prohibitive as well.

[LandDr]

You have done a lot of great projects...more than most...and you should see a few more deer.

But...do the deer stay on your property? If not...then they are going to something better. Why is it better?

Do deer stay the winter on your property? If not...why not?

Initially when I bought this 160 acres, deer did not stay on the property and deer did not winter on the property. By design, I have increased the carrying capacity so now they do stay on the property and they do winter on the property. I am not saying deer have to winter on your property, but by designing more of what they need to do so would greatly increase your carrying capacity to attract and hold deer.

I was a Certified Stewardship Planner at one time. Your forester provided you with sound "forest management" recommendations...he is a forester. Did he talk about thermal cover? Did he talk about food sources? And I don't mean just acorns. I went to a SIP training workshop one time where the training forester said..."you don't need food plots to have deer...". This is true. If you want a "few" deer, then don't include food as one of the primary objectives on the property. I call that "having a package of wieners in the fridge". Not much carrying capacity there...but you will see an occasional deer. If you want to see a lot of deer...you will need to develop the thermal cover, maximize the food sources and provide the bedding and water...without that, you will just see occasional deer and always be at the mercy of Mother Nature.

Very true that some properties have poor soils, steep slopes, wet soils, etc. that do not allow all of the recommended options and therefore will have limitations. I have not looked at the aerial and soils overlay for your property so I am unsure if there are any limitations. Send me your twp, rng and section and I would be happy to take a quick look at it.

[LandDr]

smsmith...I'm not saying you have to do anything. But it is pretty straight forward what deer need to stay on a property. Does need thick thermal cover, food, water and bedding. Bucks want does (during parts of the year that is). If you are not happy with your deer population or what you are seeing...then you need to increase your carrying capacity...otherwise the deer are not just going to magically start using your property more.

If properties have that bad of soils or capabilities, either expectations need to be lowered...or understand it will take work, time and money to get to the desired expectations (if the property can do that)...or sell the property and go buy one that does allow meeting your expectations.

Waiting for the DNR to do what you want or Mother Nature to cooperate will probably not happen...or it will take a lot longer than just taking it into your own hands and make it happen.

There are some programs available to help with cost sharing site prep, clearing, planting, etc. Some pay better than others. But there is some help with the cost.

[smsmith]

Believe me, I do plenty of habitat work and have increased the CC of my acreage. However, since I'm not a millionaire and don't want to destroy 20-30% of my forests and swamps/marshes so I can become a part time farmer...its not a legitimate option for me. "Farming" 17-26 acres every year is not a realistic option for the vast majority of folks. If I had wanted to to that, I'd have bought land SW of I94.

[Farmsfulltime]

I think if we all took care of our deer on our land each of us, instead of being worrying about weather the deer will be shot by the neighbor , in other words manage your herd on your land with harvest and food ect. LandDr is right in my opinion if the tags are out there and the neighbors want to fill fine . If the land carries the deer they wont leave , Im in area 225 plenty of deer here. Winter had no effect at all here they spent all winter in unpicked corn fields staying fat. I have been here 28 years I think the deer population is the highest its ever been here Dnr had intensive here for eight plus years, look at harvest levels across the area less than two average per hunter that actually hunts or registers deer, Most people I see complain about deer population are more concerned about what the neighbor is doing than what they can do , Yes it does cost big, big money to feed them in farm country. don't expect your farming neighbors to pay to feed 40 deer per square mile and you hunt for a few days per year do your part if you want them on your place its a free country invest in your sport

[LandDr]

smsmith...you seem to be taking a level of defense with me and at no time was I commenting on you or your property. You have stated your expectations perfectly and that is just fine. Other people will have other expectations and properties with other limitations or opportunities. I am simply giving discussion for people to start thinking about what they can maybe do on their property. Waiting for the DNR to fix anything is unrealistic IMO...take it into your own hands...just as you have done, I have done and others too.

Farmsfulltime...I get that question at seminars all the time..."what about the land around my property?" Unless your neighbors are completely on board, you really have no control over what your neighbors are doing. Focus on your own land and increase the carrying capacity to whatever your expectations or goals are. I agree with many of your other comments as well.

You are also hitting the nail on the head...most properties have such huge limiting factors in the design and carrying capacities are very low. Your personal property is the "low hanging fruit"...it is the easiest to work with and make changes in reasonable amounts of time.

Another issue I see is govt and other organizations giving advice and consulting. Seriously...these groups have had 20 to 30 years to get it right. But here we are with some of the poorest pheasant, deer and duck populations in much of the state. And look how they manage their land...everyone should enjoy hunting on grazed public lands this fall. IMO they are doing more harm than good. It's like hiring the IRS to do your taxes.

[smsmith]

I have no issue with "you" Land Dr., my issue is with the one size fits all fix it approaches that are so prevalent in the industry now. There is no one solution for every property, that is my only point.

The DNR has begun to implement a fix thanks to pressure from the MDDI, MDHA and grass roots hunters. Our intention is to make darn sure that they are just starting on the fix and that it continues well into the future.

Farmsfulltime...there is no unit in the State with 40 dpsm. I'm sure there are pockets (like at Land Dr's place) within units, but they are few and far between.

[Farmsfulltime]

I can only speak for my situation on my land as the state is very large and diverse area each with its own problems and yes the Dnr will fix this with or without special interest groups , I don't know if anyone has mentioned this yet I would like to commend our DNR as they are accused of mismanagement all the time consider that one group wants more, one group wants bigger, one group wants less ect They can never be right no matter what all we can do is control what we can in our own situations , I cant see the populations pushed to the levels that some want to many interests for some constraint on high population , insurance, farm, foresters, some homeowners, lets face it it is still deer hunting, not watching them parade by its hunting

[LandDr]

I don't think I expressed this as a fix all...but implementation of this design to whatever level a landowner can or wants to implement it will provide more results.

If you look at the units with higher deer densities...what do they have that the other units do not have? What is missing on the lower density properties? Find that equation and then duplicate it to whatever level you can on other properties.

For example...my property was bare land when I started. Now I have pheasants flying all over (my pheasant population is not down), high quality deer and ducks flying all over as well. What has changed?

A property a few miles away was also bare land and now holds a lot of deer and some of the biggest bucks around. Also pheasants and ducks everywhere. Why?

Another one a few miles west was bare short CRP grass many years ago and now is one of the best deer hunting places in the state with lots of pheasant, turkey and ducks. Why?

Other properties in the area the deer run through and do not stay. Public land is nothing but grass. Grass is great for buffalo, prairie chickens, bob-o-links and butterflies...but not many deer or pheasants stay on these places any more. Why?

Seems like the govt and organizations are missing the boat big time, while a lot of the private properties have it figured out. And private properties are the easiest to work with and the fastest way to make change.

[LandDr]

True again Farmsfulltime...you can never make everyone happy. There are way too many interest groups and they are all pulling and pushing. The only real control I have is what I do on my own property. If I want more deer...I manage for that. If I want more ducks and pheasants...I manage for that. I don't have to put pressure on the DNR to make any changes...I just go out and get it done on my own property. If you can get more people around your property to do the same, that is even better.

I also agree with simply reducing harvest of does to increase the population may cause a lot of other problems. Not all, but a lot of MN has a very low carrying capacity in comparison to what people's expectations are. Increasing the herd size without increasing the carrying capacity can have big issues. More mouths to feed combined with a bad winter can be disastrous. "Build it and they will come"...increase your carrying capacity and Mother Nature will fill the opportunity.

[smsmith]

All valid points. One thing that units with higher densities have are area and regional DNR managers who have been willing to listen to deer hunters and manage for higher densities.

North of me one mile is the line dividing units. South of that line the unit is managed for 10 dpsm (and is below goal) and has been Managed for years. North of that line is managed for 20 dpsm (and is slightly above goal) and has been Hunter Choice most of the last few years. If I were in the unit north of me, I'd likely never have gotten involved in the MDDI or MDHA. 20 dpsm pre-fawn is quite reasonable for the Transition area. Under 10 dpsm is not.

We can't simply remove the DNR from the equation when they ultimately have the largest impact on our deer herd.

Private land owners can indeed improve their own situations...what about the public land hunters? Do we just remove them from the discussion?

[Farmsfulltime]

Public land hunting is well public land hunting always has been always will be just the nature of it , Most quality public land hunting involves some major effort ie way back in, a spot not covered ect . There is a reason for private land hunting and it comes with costs also land cost, taxes , upkeep and of coarse habitat costs . Just face it the less fertile the land the less carrying capacity , less top soil less forage, less deer , a lot of hunting land purchased in Minnesota is low producing land otherwise it would be farmed , There never will be high deer pops on that scrub land way up north, ,maybe cycle up some but will always average back down , winter, wolves, food ect

[InTheNorthwoods]

I have no issue with "you" Land Dr., my issue is with the one size fits all fix it approaches that are so prevalent in the industry now. There is no one solution for every property, that is my only point.

There is no one solution to every property, but there is a simple formula for every property - food, shelter, safety. If you don't have adequate supplies of each, you can only support so many deer. It is no different for communities/society/people. If you don't have enough food, jobs, shelter, etc. in a town - then there will be people that move out for other, more stable opportunities so they can survive. This leaves communities with a choice, you either build more opportunity (i.e. sufficient housing, food supply, safety), or chose to continue to support only a certain number of inhabitants with some inevitable ups and downs.

Unfortunately, both with deer and human "communities", money and time are going to be limiting factors for "community development," and although we can all see what should be done, the reality is that there are just some people that have more of each (or have some inherent advantage in ability) to put back into the "community."

[PurpleFloyd]

Great discussion. Many great points.

[SmellEsox]

I guarantee what is limiting deer populations across the transition zone is not winter habitat or any habitat component. It is high velocity lead poisoning of high numbers of antlerless deer. You could easily double the population in this transition area and it could be sustainable long term. Research has shown that in areas of woods mixed with agriculture, carrying capacity is amazingly high. 80-100 dpsm. It is not socially acceptable, but it is sustainable at a very high number. I am not advocating that is what we should do, but nobody can convince me that significant habitat improvement is needed to have 25 dpsm across the transition zone. You won't convince me that winters will have a drastic effect either. Once maybe every 10-15 years you might have a winter that impacts recruitment, but for the most part hunting is what is suppressing deer numbers in this area.

[smsmith]

I guarantee what is limiting deer populations across the transition zone is not winter habitat or any habitat component. It is high velocity lead poisoning of high numbers of antlerless deer. You could easily double the population in this transition area and it could be sustainable long term. Research has shown that in areas of woods mixed with agriculture, carrying capacity is amazingly high. 80-100 dpsm. It is not socially acceptable, but it is sustainable at a very high number. I am not advocating that is what we should do, but nobody can convince me that significant habitat improvement is needed to have 25 dpsm across the transition zone. You won't convince me that winters will have a drastic effect either. Once maybe every 10-15 years you might have a winter that impacts recruitment, but for the most part hunting is what is suppressing deer numbers in this area.

Well stated sir

[Farmsfulltime]

Sustainable at what price, Im sure at 25 Dsm there will be pockets where the concentration of deer would exceed 40 Dsm and in same area there could be less than 10 Dsm , By sustainable im sure your deer would only consume feed on your hunting blocks they wouldn't travel to where there is high quality farm crops like corn, alfalfa, beans, to fill up on Im pretty sure. In the transition zone everyone knows what deer feed on . so ag is to eat the cost of funding this in a larger way, Some here brought up the spring meetings this year before seasons had been set, well I went listened last year with intensive of the active hunters less than 2 deer were shot and registered , even with 5 allowed, first thing that will be said is there aren't enough out there in area 225 , well this number has held ever since intensive was started here all I can assume is the landlords -hunters don't want -need to harvest more, Why aren't farmers complaining is because the dnr had already issued 5 tags what more can they do the dnr can not force the hunters to take more animals so no complaints . get the population at or over 25 dsm and there will be plenty of complaints. I also know that this here, not other areas

[smsmith]

How on Earth do farmers in States like IA, WI, IL, OH, KS, etc. ever make a living? You'd think the darn deer would be driving farmers out of business in States with an actual deer herd.

[hockeybc69]

Lets not forget so easily that there are other animals consuming farmers crops.....

Bears, geese, coons, sandhills and whatever else.

I think the deer take a lot of blame as the villain, when it in fact is a lot of other animals causing damage as well.

[Farmsfulltime]

Yes there are other animals that feed heavily in corn , bean, alfalfa , fields and of coarse deer do and they do take a percentage everywhere . With the current wildlife consumption then add additional deer feeding , Remember wildlife does not put you out of business by the eating they just consume the profit not the overhead . Heavy wildlife feeding is like a tax on farmers they take theirs before you get yours. I ask anyone that would approve of doubling the populations to put themselves in those shoes . As far as other States there are plenty of hard feeling across the corn belt . Find a farmer in any of those states mentioned and ask them if they would welcome doubling of their current population in their areas. No the deer population will not put them out of business . By the way love having deer here enjoy them daily and hunt them myself but will never vote to increase the wildlife tax that is paid out yearly. I can also understand the hunters that currently have depressed populations , I manage to always find a deer not feeding in my corn on opening mourning every year year after year Im sure they were just passing thru to better habitat