MN deer hunters

[SmellEsox]

Just so everyone knows, deer hunting isn't just a trivial pursuit in the state of MN. It is big business. Deer hunting alone contributes 100's of millions if not a couple of billions of dollars to the state. I don't know the exact amount, but I'm sure it is out there somewhere. It's not just purchase of equipment, guns, ammo, gas, etc., etc. Think about all the money hunters invest in land, pickup trucks, etc. with deer hunting in mind. It's not just a hobby for some. It's big business.

[hockeybc69]

I just hope that hunters and farmers can work together instead of seperating and chastizing the other.

[PurpleFloyd]

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.

So we have more DHPSM (deer hunters per square Mile) than the state's that you often mention with higher DPSM numbers? Are there more hunters per square Mike where you live than where you lived in Sconnie?

I know that the area where we have a small property in northern Sconnie we could take up to six a year with all the bonus tags and licenses we could buy yet there were deer all over the place. The bulk of the deer harvested were does yet the numbers were up very high.

That was back in the 80's and 90's pre Wolf introduction. Numbers are lower now even though it seems the number of hunters in that area is lower. My guess is there are many fewer hunters per square Mile than the transition area and much of that is from urban hunters coming up from the metro.If the problem is Gunter density then the state can't do much short of rationing which I am not a fan of. You may not be able to overcome that with patchy habitat projects.

[Farmsfulltime]

Went to a little trouble to find a few facts out DNR harvest reports for area 215 have been awful close to 3.5 to 3.7 deer harvested per square mile . I checked 2013 , 2010 , 2006 , to see if the harvest has dropped as much as has been alleged , nope pretty stable even years,, must be sustainable. There are a lot more dismal places to hunt in Minnesota according to the numbers. Maybe im missing the point, maybe the discussion is about quality animals well im sure the people that took those deer considered them as quality or they wouldn't have harvested them. For anyones information do a search of dnr harvest , and the year you want to know about is all there every area in the state

[hockeybc69]

In 215 the number of firearms hunters is up 10+% over that same time span as well.

More hunters to put the same numbers(or less) of deer on the table.

Which coincides with the statewide harvest numbers. The hunter success rate has dropped significantly overall.

When is enough decline.... Enough?

As Smellysocks noted, deer hunting is big business in MN. Do we continue to let it slide and then what happens??

[smsmith]

There are definitely more dismal places to hunt in MN than unit 215. Unit 221 comes to mind as does most of the northern 1/3 of the state.

Harvest trend rates...do not take into account hunter effort, advancements in technology, and how many deer a hunter passes. Trend rates can remain stable if hunters shoot the first deer they see (because they've come to learn that may be the ONLY deer they see), while in the past those same hunters may have allowed a number of deer to walk past before taking one. We don't know if any of those may be factors because the DNR hasn't conducted any hunter surveys in central MN for about 10 years.

[Farmsfulltime]

Oh I don't believe its as bad as that. Ive chased deer in the early seventies and they sure came back plenty. In the area im in the land blocks are broke up smaller than years ago so the hunting pressure is distributed more pretty hard to hunt them out here . I would go so far to say there is no way that could happen now here theres just to much cover.

[smsmith]

So we have more DHPSM (deer hunters per square Mile) than the state's that you often mention with higher DPSM numbers? Are there more hunters per square Mike where you live than where you lived in Sconnie?

I know that the area where we have a small property in northern Sconnie we could take up to six a year with all the bonus tags and licenses we could buy yet there were deer all over the place. The bulk of the deer harvested were does yet the numbers were up very high.

That was back in the 80's and 90's pre Wolf introduction. Numbers are lower now even though it seems the number of hunters in that area is lower. My guess is there are many fewer hunters per square Mile than the transition area and much of that is from urban hunters coming up from the metro.If the problem is Gunter density then the state can't do much short of rationing which I am not a fan of. You may not be able to overcome that with patchy habitat projects.

DHPSM are higher in MN than in some states and lower than others. Much higher than in IA, IL, IN, MS, KS, OK, GA... lower than in most of WI, MI, and PA.

DHPSM's are higher here than one spot I hunted in WI and lower than in the other.

What you mention about northern WI is exactly why most of that part of WI is now bucks only. Far too liberal antlerless tag allocation for far too long. Northern WI businesses that cater to deer hunters are hurting, and will be even more so this year.

Your guess about deer hunter numbers in some areas of northern WI and the transition zone is accurate. In other areas there are higher DHPMs in northern WI than the transition zone. All depends on what you call "northern WI" I suppose.

I'm not sure what you mean about rationing? In a sense, reducing a unit from Intensive to Managed or Managed to Hunter Choice is rationing.

[Farmsfulltime]

Did a quik search here are the facts 2008 area 215 had 6,303 hunters and about9.0 hunters per square mile,, 2013 area 215 had 6,694 hunters and about 9.2 hunters per square mile a difference of 391 hunters or about 6 percent more

[Farmsfulltime]

In area 215 harvest in the last few years has been split almost even among antlered and antlerless . A few more antlered but very close to even sounds about the ratio they are born at,, sustainable I think

[hockeybc69]

2006 there were 5992 firearms hunters.

Thats a 10% increase in hunters from 2006 to 2013.

Look at the average success rate statewide. That tells a very clear story.

2007 we peaked at 41.7% success rate with firearms.

2013 was 29.7% success rate with firearms.

Since the 1994 season, 2013 is the lowest success rate except for 1997 when it was 27.8%.

We are already losing deer hunters. Keep this trend up and its not going to increase the people buying licenses. Less people buying licenses, less money for the DNR.

The license sales for deer hunting go towards a lot of other management programs that the DNR takes care of outside of deer management.

[smsmith]

The license sales for deer hunting go towards a lot of other management programs that the DNR takes care of outside of deer management.

Did some digging on that subject today. I'm waiting for a response from Paul Telander with the DNR to confirm what I read, but in viewing the fiscal year report for 2013 it looks like just over $4 million of the $18 million deer license revenue brought in went towards deer management. Less than 25%......

[PurpleFloyd]

DHPSM are higher in MN than in some states and lower than others. Much higher than in IA, IL, IN, MS, KS, OK, GA... lower than in most of WI, MI, and PA.

DHPSM's are higher here than one spot I hunted in WI and lower than in the other.

[mntatonka]

We are already losing deer hunters. Keep this trend up and its not going to increase the people buying licenses. Less people buying licenses, less money for the DNR.

The license sales for deer hunting go towards a lot of other management programs that the DNR takes care of outside of deer management.

Actually, we've gained hunters every year since at least 2007 except 2013, when the number went down less than 1% (which was still 11,500 higher than 2011).

[PurpleFloyd]

2006 there were 5992 firearms hunters.

Thats a 10% increase in hunters from 2006 to 2013.

Look at the average success rate statewide. That tells a very clear story.

2007 we peaked at 41.7% success rate with firearms.

2013 was 29.7% success rate with firearms.

Since the 1994 season, 2013 is the lowest success rate except for 1997 when it was 27.8%.

We are already losing deer hunters. Keep this trend up and its not going to increase the people buying licenses. Less people buying licenses, less money for the DNR.

The license sales for deer hunting go towards a lot of other management programs that the DNR takes care of outside of deer management.

That makes sense. If there are more hunters chasing the same number of deer, the population(And the success rate) should drop. Although that may not be the case either. If, for instance, a great number f hunters bought into the idea of letting every deer except trophies walk, then obviously the success rate would go down. So possibly things are not as bad as they seem and maybe, just maybe we are seeing the goals of the APR movement come to fruition in certain ways.

[hockeybc69]

APR puts more pressure on shooting does, rather than immature bucks.

APR mindset does change the harvest levels, and actually could take populations down more because you are shooting does.... Does drop babies, and they are the ones being harvested. Yearling bucks dont drop babies, and they are the ones let to walk.

Your example would accurate if the "trophy" hunters just go out and have one goal in mind. Mature buck or bust for the season.

[PurpleFloyd]

APR puts more pressure on shooting does, rather than immature bucks.

APR mindset does change the harvest levels, and actually could take populations down more because you are shooting does.... Does drop babies, and they are the ones being harvested. Yearling bucks dont drop babies, and they are the ones let to walk.

Your example would accurate if the "trophy" hunters just go out and have one goal in mind. Mature buck or bust for the season.

What you posted is the exact argument I have been making on here for a few years and have had many contentious debates trying to get across. Just a year ago what you just posted was rejected by some APR supporters on this board who were pushing for it to be implemented statewide without considering its possible impacts on populations.I am glad to see that mindset seems to be changing.

[Farmsfulltime]

Is the quest for higher deer numbers about horns if so come out and say it . Because the APR movement will affect all deer hunting if implemented statewide. Don't think it will happen statewide though. To many other factors and theres plenty of got to shoot a buck mindset out there already and if that is the case even a smaller group of the overall hunters harvest antlerless . Sounds a little like controlling your neighbor to suit your standards . Horn Porn Maybe

[smsmith]

Is the quest for higher deer numbers about horns if so come out and say it . Because the APR movement will affect all deer hunting if implemented statewide. Don't think it will happen statewide though. To many other factors and theres plenty of got to shoot a buck mindset out there already and if that is the case even a smaller group of the overall hunters harvest antlerless . Sounds a little like controlling your neighbor to suit your standards . Horn Porn Maybe

I can only speak for myself, but the answer is NO. The reason I'm part of the MDDI is that I want to insure our hunting heritage for generations. Public land hunters, hunters who only get to hunt a day or two a year, youth hunters, "new" hunters, etc. are those we are most at risk of losing from our ranks when the deer herd is artificially suppressed. Try to get a kid hooked on hunting when they sit for days and maybe see A deer. Pretty tough to compete with the world of instant feedback they all get now. Being able to take a doe, fawn, or young buck shouldn't require unbelievable woodsmanship or the dedication of a long distance runner.

I'll go out on a limb and state that there will never be a push for a statewide APR rule. Groups who were pushing for such a rule have been awfully quiet of late. If there is any expansion of APR's (which I currently doubt) it would be in relatively small areas and the "push" would come from the MN DNR...nobody else. APR's were established in the SE because the DNR wanted the doe herd reduced. Period. They sold groups and hunters pushing for yearling buck protection an idea that "fit" with those groups' and hunters' mindsets. Hunter satisfaction surveys in the SE are showing decreased levels of satisfaction. P&Y entries are down 40%+ in the last 7 years or so.

I used to be in favor of limited expansion (note the word limited please) of APR zones. Now, I think there are better options. WI has no APR zones, yet year after year they are number 1 in trophy bucks taken. Why? Because they have plenty of deer. Its easy for a hunter to pass a young buck when that hunter knows he has a good chance at taking a better buck. Here, if a hunter sees a buck he knows that is likely the ONLY buck he's going to see. We don't need APRs...we just need a larger deer herd.

What we (WE...farmers, hunters, orchardists, lake residents, metro people, etc.) need to figure out is how many deer we can realistically support and keep the majority of people happy. No one group of people should have more say than another on the subject. Beginning to use some hard science rather than the soft sciences of sociology and psychology to manage our deer herd would also be a great idea.

Question for you farmsfulltime...if there were a program available to assist farmers who are experiencing significant crop damage from deer (verified by the DNR) and that program allowed farmers to have access to depredation tags would that have any appeal? WI farmers who have too many deer (again, verified by the DNR) get to utilize depredation tags (I believe in August through the beginning of the bow season in mid-Sept...not 100% sure on that though). At least a portion of those tags are supposed to be filled by the "public" which means farmers need to allow folks who contact them to shoot some of the deer. Sound like a program that may alleviate some farmers' concerns?

Edit...I was wrong about having to allow the public access for a portion of the tags outside the open season. During the open season farmers must allow either managed or open access http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/WildlifeHabitat/hunt.html

[hockeybc69]

Quote:

I am glad to see that mindset seems to be changing.

My mindset has not changed at all. I was in favor of APR on a limited expansion basis where it could make sense.

Where could it make sense?

Any area that can sustain higher populations of deer AND has higher deer populations.

At this time, the areas of high deer populations are so few and far between, APR would be simply foolish to even discuss.

[ANYFISH2]

Went to a little trouble to find a few facts out DNR harvest reports for area 215 have been awful close to 3.5 to 3.7 deer harvested per square mile . I checked 2013 , 2010 , 2006 , to see if the harvest has dropped as much as has been alleged , nope pretty stable even years,, must be sustainable. There are a lot more dismal places to hunt in Minnesota according to the numbers. Maybe im missing the point, maybe the discussion is about quality animals well im sure the people that took those deer considered them as quality or they wouldn't have harvested them. For anyones information do a search of dnr harvest , and the year you want to know about is all there every area in the state

This info can be looked at as proof the pop. Is stable. It may be a disservice if it is the only perameter looked at though.

I will use a very visable example, Camp Ripley.

When myself and other hunters started to voice our concerns about the quality of hunt we were having. Namely numbers of animals, numbers of hunters, and numbers of animals being harvested. Beau Liddel, other DNR personnel, and some camp employees would ALWAYS refer to harvest continued to be stable in the 400+ range for the years after allowing 2 deer. They would not listen to our "anecdotal" observationthat the population was ssignificantly getting smaller. Even telling us they surveyed 30 dpm, even though in fact they hadnt done a population assessment in a decade(not at all in Beau's tenure as manager)?

Not surprising the last two years harvest crashed to 200 and less. This somehow was blamed on huntersbeing lazy and leaving early!!

My point being, hunters will kill deer. Harvest, given stable limits, will be stable till the population looses its surplus, at that point harvest will fall dramatically. Populations will fall without signs being seen just in harvest numbers. This is way I feel it is important for us to right the ship now before the bottom truely falls out. The DNR has made a big step this year with significant reductions to antlerless harvest.

Thank you to you, land dr, smsmith, and others for this thread. By far one of the better on topic threads in a long time!

[Farmsfulltime]

Current depredation tags as far as I know are only for specialty crop losses, the tags issued must be filled using copper bullets, deer must be gutted and hung, call to officer made, deer surrendered , deer is then taken to a processer , processed and distributed to food selves . policy would have to change greatly

[SmellEsox]

Well state smsmith. And ANYFISH2 also. Couldn't agree more.

[smsmith]

policy would have to change greatly

That's kind of my point. There are changes to be made that should help farmers with depredation...while at the same time not hurting public land hunters. Up until this year, our DNR has approached "hot spots" with farm depredation by blanketing units with large numbers of antlerless permits (Intensive). By doing that it has done a poor job (if any, as you seem to point out in your area) of dealing with the actual hot spot while hammering the dump out of the doe herd in much of the unit. If areas with high depredation can be addressed on a local level, the rest of the unit doesn't have to suffer. Basically seems like trying to drive a finish nail with a sledgehammer to me.

There are policy changes that can be made that will benefit farmers and other folks with depredation issues, without punishing the rest of the unit's deer hunters.

[Farmsfulltime]

I have to confess I sat in on the last stake holder meetings about 9 or 10 years ago, there has been some misinformation out there regarding those meetings as not fair , hunters didn't have a voice ect Looked thru some of the handouts we were given over 80 percent there were active deer hunters all with different jobs in the outdoor field. The plans that were brought forth then involved deer density but another large factor at that time that set the stage for lower populations cronic wasting and the unknowen effect it would have and how fast it would travel in a high population . The DNR did not have enough information at that time so choose to lower the population to lessen potential outbreaks . There are some large risks maybe with 30 - 40 deer per square mile . Deer hunting and deer populations can effect other things not so apparent. What im trying to say is be carefull what you wish for you might get it