MN deer hunters

[Farmsfulltime]

Another thought search the different deer threads in this site and you will find hunters almost always position themselves through scouting, cameras on travel routes to or from food sources, in the transition zone that means farm fields . The next deer you shoot after you gut it check stomach contents it wont be hazel brush and twigs for sure

[hockeybc69]

No it wont be hazel nuts, it will be the corn, beans, winter rye and clover that I put in my food plots.

[PurpleFloyd]

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.

I am not a farmer but that was not very tactful if you are tying to build a consensus. It doesn't make them bankrupt but every additional deer does reduce their profit and it is absolutely something that does need to be considered.

Deer, whether hunters want to admit it or not are a public resource. Lots of people are at the table wanting a say in how they are managed and while you are guaranteed the right to your opinion, every other resident has an equal say whether they agree with you or not. Asking one industry to take a reduced income just so you can increase your opportunities may not be the most popular idea to everyone.

While this was in reply to you, it wasn't directed at you personally but rather to remind us that it is a big fish bowl and we need to be careful not to turn away potential support by alienating fellow hunters that may have different perspectives.

[creepworm]

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.

I wanted to ask you a question since you began posting on here but decided to stay out of it, until you posted this.

Why should farmers be responsible for, and take on the burden of feeding all these extra deer so you do not have to work hard to be successful at your hobby?

I am not expecting an answer, nobody answers that question when I ask it. I seriously do not understand the mindset some people have of my hobby being more important than your livelihood. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

[smsmith]

Why should farmers be responsible for, and take on the burden of feeding all these extra deer so you do not have to work hard to be successful at your hobby?

I am not expecting an answer, nobody answers that question when I ask it. I seriously do not understand the mindset some people have of my hobby being more important than your livelihood. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

I'll pose this question in return: When did farmers go from being stewards of the resource (which would include game and non-game animals) to being solely interested in the bottom line?

I do not want farmers to take it in the shorts...but do not believe the "doom and gloom" view that having 20-25 dpsm is going to hurt their bottom line significantly. States with huge deer herds are going to have a record corn crop this year. WI has areas with 100 dpsm (certainly NOT something I want or advocate for) and the farmers there continue to do quite well. Farmers used to be interested in providing habitat for pheasants, rabbits, quail, and (gasp) deer. Now every fence row is removed and marshes/swamps tiled.

MN has programs to deal with crop depredation (funded by hunter license revenue). In SE MN the DNR has hired two full time staff (funded by hunter license revenue) to deal with hot spots where high deer numbers are causing excessive crop damage in localized areas.

My point is that I tire of agriculture saying we can't have more deer because it is going to cause these huge problems. In the last 10 years there has been an average of two (2) farm depredation complaints in Todd County annually (most of Todd has a goal of 20 dpsm and is at goal). In SE MN (our highest densities exist there) the DNR says farmers report $3 million in crop damage. That's a big number...until you find out that it is $3 million out of over $2 billion. Meanwhile in WI where the DNR tracks crop damage numbers (MN does not, they rely on farmers to report damage numbers without verification) the damage Statewide is around $1.6 million.

Farmers and hunters can get along, but we need to use facts during our discussions.

[smsmith]

I am not a farmer but that was not very tactful if you are tying to build a consensus.

I've been called many things. Tactful is not one of them.

My goal is to get discussion going. If that discussion becomes heated at times I think it is good. Get the emotions out so we can get to the obstacles as we each view them. Is that the best tactic? I don't know. Has it led to some pretty meaningful discussions online and in person the last 8 months or so? Yep.

Get it all on the table so we can move forward

[Farmsfulltime]

Do have question on your facts and a few facts of my own. On the deer complaints in Todd county were those complaints from row crop farms or were they from specialty crop farms . If they were specialty crops like apples, berries, nursery stock ect there is a fence fund by the dnr in place to help pay for that about $3000.00 once in a lifetime that will cover about one tenth of the cost. Most growers that are serious about their business know about wildlife and also know they will have to pickup the cost of the rest. But row crop farms by their nature connot be fenced cost effective . The record corn crop that you speak of did not and will not come from transition type habitat it comes from monocultures in other words no habitat , no fence lines, no tree lines, not many deer and not much deer feeding also that part of the corn belt can produce 200-250 bushels per acre easily not so much in the center of Minnesota so the deer feeding cost is a much higher percentage of the profit end on less bushels. yesterday you mentioned that it would take a lot of resources to farm part time a few acres . let that sink in for a bit then double the population. don't put your blinders on we are all in this together. The DNR will not alow the population to go past 25 dpsm here area 225 .

[smsmith]

The DNR will not alow the population to go past 25 dpsm here area 225 .

I agree. I don't think they'll allow it to get to 25 dpsm (pre-fawn). I do NOT want it go above 25 dpsm (pre-fawn).

I think 20-25 dpsm is a realistic goal for most areas of the transition zone. Unit 221 was at 7.2 dpsm per aerial fly over last winter. Yet the area manager (Beau Liddell) was still pushing for Intensive harvest and early antlerless season.

The farm complaints I stated were directly from the DNR's information. Whether they are accurate or not...I have no idea. Knowing the other inaccuracies that exist within the Dept. I wouldn't be a bit shocked if they too are incorrect.

[Farmsfulltime]

I have very high regard for DNR and the job they have and are very professional in a very difficult postion wrong no matter what they do. some things to think about do you think our DNR talks to DNR in other states . Of coarse they do and they also now how fast a population can explode and get out of hand. They work real hard on trying to stay ahead of things before it gets bad . Don't give the special interest groups to much credit , one maybe two seasons and the extra tags will be right back . Of coarse in low population areas it wont. Back here at home talked with a neighbor counted up the harvest bow, gun, muzzle, friends , family , ect alitte less than a square mile of area 14 deer harvested ,just as many or more here now it wont take long for this to explode here

[creepworm]

I'll pose this question in return: When did farmers go from being stewards of the resource (which would include game and non-game animals) to being solely interested in the bottom line?

Farming is a business, plain and simple. May not seem like it because they do not work standard hours or drive to a place of employment, but it is a business.

[smsmith]

do you think our DNR talks to DNR in other states .

No...I don't think they do. Why? Because I've communicated a number of times with top DNR folks about what other States are doing regarding deer management and developing a deer management plan (we have none) and they are unaware of what other States are doing.

I believe this is the case with many State DNR's. One good thing that came out of the first QDMA Deer Summit was that State DNR folks had a chance to meet each other and have discussions.

[creepworm]

I do not want farmers to take it in the shorts...but do not believe the "doom and gloom" view that having 20-25 dpsm is going to hurt their bottom line significantly. States with huge deer herds are going to have a record corn crop this year. WI has areas with 100 dpsm (certainly NOT something I want or advocate for) and the farmers there continue to do quite well. Farmers used to be interested in providing habitat for pheasants, rabbits, quail, and (gasp) deer. Now every fence row is removed and marshes/swamps tiled.

So you are saying farmers are responsible for you being successful at your hobby because it won't hurt their bottom line significantly?

If that is the case, how would you feel if I start taking 10% of your salary so I can buy some land and improve habitat in order to improve my deer hunting? Its only 10%, shouldn't hurt your bottom line significantly, correct?

I am guessing you would not care for that but that is the exact situation that farmers are in. They would lose money in order for others to be more successful at their hobby. But, why should anyone besides farmers care? It is not their money and it will not hurt their bottom line "significantly"?

As for the habitat question, let me change perspective a bit. Say you own a construction company. Someone wants a house built in a 6 acre parcel of woods. Would you say no thanks when asked if you would build this house because it would be destroying habitat? Not if you plan on being in business very long. Same with farmers. When the opportunity for increased revenue presents itself, farmers, along with a vast majority of people, will take that opportunity.

[Farmsfulltime]

I of coarse agree with creepworm every farmer out there wants all the crop he can get as he has the same needs as every other worker. Family ,Schooling for the kids, food, electric ,heat , insurance ,self employment tax , I could go on and on Farming is all about margins and some times the margin is thin . wont give up any willingly . Farm groups also have a lobby and wont be at the public meetings But they do have the DNRs ear

[smsmith]

Pretty sure taxpayers are helping farmers out quite a bit already

http://farm.ewg.org/region.php?fips=27000

MN farmers are number 4 in the nation for subsidies paid. 70 percent of farms in MN received some type of subsidy between 1995 and 2012

[Farmsfulltime]

I don't and will not sign up for any govt farm programs so im sure wildlife only eats govt crops . I knew this would come up as the way to justify things The deer only take the subsidy corn . If its so good jump in theres plenty of room at the table . This is old silly town stuff and wont go there remember just because my post count is low does not mean im knew here . Just new at posting as I feel the conversation has been awful one sided for too long

[creepworm]

Pretty sure taxpayers are helping farmers out quite a bit already

http://farm.ewg.org/region.php?fips=27000

MN farmers are number 4 in the nation for subsidies paid. 70 percent of farms in MN received some type of subsidy between 1995 and 2012

So now you are saying that farmers should be responsible for making you successful at your hobby because they receive government subsidies?

[smsmith]

So now you are saying that farmers should be responsible for making you successful at your hobby because they receive government subsidies?

Not at all. You posed the question that if I lost a percentage of income would I be happy. I already do lose a percentage of income to farm subsidies.

[smsmith]

I don't and will not sign up for any govt farm programs

I'm glad to hear that. It appears you are in a pretty small minority however.

[Farmsfulltime]

Yes everyone that pays taxes is involved in the farm program . Some even unwillingly involved . Real similar to farmers paying for crop loss thru wildlife increases. Like I said join in help feed the growing deer herd do something on your land that you control . It will only benefit the wildlife and your own hunting I, we will contribute our share on our lands and also try to control a growing population of deer thru proper harvest of antlerless where we can make a difference

[smsmith]

Yes everyone that pays taxes is involved in the farm program . Some even unwillingly involved . Real similar to farmers paying for crop loss thru wildlife increases. Like I said join in help feed the growing deer herd do something on your land that you control . It will only benefit the wildlife and your own hunting I, we will contribute our share on our lands and also try to control a growing population of deer thru proper harvest of antlerless where we can make a difference

That seems perfectly reasonable to me. For the record...in the three years I've owned my place I've added about 3 acres of foodplots and several dozen fruit trees. In a few years I should have several tons of apples and crabapples hitting the ground each year. Come September/October the deer get a feast of burr and red oak acorns on my place. Farm fields are largely abandoned by deer around here when the acorns start falling. I've hinge cut large areas so the underbrush can fill back in and provide browse. Just had a bunch of mature aspen harvested (not the best time, but it was when I could get somebody to do it) so in a few years that area will provide loads of young tender aspen browse. Every year I plant hundreds of evergreens. I have plans for about another 1.5 acres of foodplots in the next year or so. Given the handful of deer I have around here and the fact that come spring I still have plenty of acorns on the ground, I'm pretty sure my efforts have contributed greatly to helping feed the deer in my area.

Other than agitating folks online, my time is spent on habitat development. I don't want or expect farmers to have to feed all the deer and wish more private recreational landowners would spend time improving their properties for deer and other critters.

[PurpleFloyd]

Something just doesn't add up in this discussion of the area in question.

It has been said that the area has the same geographic features as other Areas in other states that have higher densities, just lower deer numbers. Yet, at the same time lots of time and effort seems to be being put into improving habitat and there are calls for others to put in the same effort on their properties to improve the habitat.

It seems if the habitat is as good as advertised,the improvements would not be necessary to have higher populations. If the area does need to have fairly aggressive improvements to it in order to increase population maybe expectations are too high.

[smsmith]

It seems if the habitat is as good as advertised,the improvements would not be necessary to have higher populations.

I'm not sure how you arrive at that thought? The habitat is here..so are the hunters (as many hunters as there are deer per square mile) and up until this year each of them could take two deer(unit 215). Its been that way for a decade. The hunters are able and willing to take those two deer. If you allow hunters to take two deer each for a decade and the vast majority do so, it has an impact on the population (the desired impact of the MN DNR).

I do habitat improvements because I enjoy it, and because I'd like to have more deer on my place and in the surrounding area.

[Farmsfulltime]

Maybe you could answer this as I don't know , In area 215 in the years it was a managed area how many deer were registered compared to lic sold breakdown how many regular tags and how many bonus second tags were sold and filled and has the trend been down as the perceived harvest has fallen .

[smsmith]

Maybe you could answer this as I don't know , In area 215 in the years it was a managed area how many deer were registered compared to lic sold breakdown how many regular tags and how many bonus second tags were sold and filled and has the trend been down as the perceived harvest has fallen .

I do not have that info readily available

[Farmsfulltime]

Lets find out we want to consider the facts not perceived facts let the numbers tell the story