Fawns

[leech~~]

Been seeing decent numbers of fawns and does. Nearly had one of each as hood ornaments today in 2 different areas.

With as bad of winter as we were suppose to have had. I'm seeing Doe's with fawns everywhere Brainerd and above. But it's funny we have any deer left come hunting season at all as I have never seen so many deer hit laying along the roads from Mankato to Squaw Lake where I have driven then I can ever remember?

[PurpleFloyd]

Been seeing decent numbers of fawns and does. Nearly had one of each as hood ornaments today in 2 different areas.

[SmellEsox]

I don't want to hijack this post, so we can move it to a different one if we need/want to. How many deer per square mile is a good number? Just going with smsmith's numbers, he said he has 87 acres, so for sake of figuring say 80 acres. I believe that an 80 is a 1/4 mile by 1/2 mile, so a quarter square mile right?

My calculation says "2 adult does, 1 fawn, a few yearling does, & some yearling bucks" as well as "possibly a couple of 2 year-old bucks". To me that could easily be 10 deer, but let's say 5-10 deer per 1/4 square mile. If you extrapalated (sp) it out that's anywhere from 20-40 deer per square mile. To me that seems like a lot of deer. I agree the farmers would definitely not be happy with that.

I look at how much more wooded land is set aside for hunting & not pastured for cattle where as 30 years ago almost all of it would have been around here. To me there are so many more deer than there were 20 years ago, admittedly less than there were 10 years ago, but the vast majority of people realize there were too many deer then. I loved it, but I'm not a farmer. That said people keep hitting deer on County Rd 38 W of LP every week or two. The deer can't be that unlucky that a large percentage are getting killed by cars.

Actually an 80 is 1/8th of a square mile if there are 640 acres in a square mile. Imagine having an 80 of prime deer habitat where the goal is 10 dpsm pre-fawn. You've invested maybe 200,000 dollars for that piece of deer heaven. And for that investment and hard work improving your property, you might only have 1 or 2 deer on it. How does that sound?

IMVHO, most people in MN don't know what high deer populations are. I spent 6 years in the U.P. of MI from 1986-91. Deer numbers were incredibly high there. We would go out shining (legal) at night and easily see 20-100 deer in a field. I don't know if I've ever seen 20 deer in a field in MN in the 23 years I've lived in central MN. One time in a winter deer yard I think. There were way too many deer in MI when I was there and you could see the effects in the deer themselves.

I would bet we've never come close to having 1/4 the deer densities here that were in the U.P. at that time. I would argue that what we had 10 years ago was ideal for around here. If you look at population estimates for 214 (414 in 2002-03), there were supposedly between 8.4 - 14.0 dpsm in the unit. In 2003 they amazingly blew up to 24.0 - 43.0 dpsm. How is that even possible? I don't think there is any way that a population could double or triple from one year to the next. The only way I could explain this is that they were vastly underestimating the population in 2002, did a flight, and re-calibrated there estimate in 2003. Otherwise that is some seriously funny math. Or some seriously poor estimating in 2002. IMVHO again, managing for less than 10 dpsm is a disservice to deer hunters in the transition areas of the state. There is no reason these areas shouldn't be managed for 15-20 dpsm.

[smsmith]

There is no reason these areas shouldn't be managed for 15-20 dpsm.

I'd say that's the lowest we should ever be managed for in the transition zone. Biological carrying capacity in these areas is easily 75+ dpsm (post fawn)...we should be managed at 35-50% of that number (26-38 dpsm post fawn).

[hockeybc69]

Here are some fun facts for you guys interested in PA 214

2007 stakeholders goals showed the populations at 20 dpsm for that year.

2013 densities show at 20 dpsm

Goal for the area is 15-19 dpsm

Somebody PLEASE explain to me how the deer harvest can be down 35% AND there are 18% more firearms hunters in the woods from 2007 to 2013, and yet the deer population estimates are exactly the same????

It is NOT possible. Period.

[SmellEsox]

I'd say that's the lowest we should ever be managed for in the transition zone. Biological carrying capacity in these areas is easily 75+ dpsm (post fawn)...we should be managed at 35-50% of that number (26-38 dpsm post fawn).

My number would be pre-fawn since that is what DNR uses, so we're not far off.

[smsmith]

My number would be pre-fawn since that is what DNR uses, so we're not far off.

Yep, we'd have definitely have an overlap

[bigbucks]

You're right an 80 is only 1/8 of a square mile, but then if there were just 5 deer in that 80, which it sounds like there easily is, that would work out to 40 dpsm.

To speak to smsmith being in 215, that makes more sense to me, there may be less deer in that area. I don't travel in that one near as much. I just know that 214 & 213 are well populated. I really would like to see 213 go back to managed, it's been hunter's choice now for 2-3 years, I forget which. I think it would really be a shame if 214 didn't stay managed. One of the properties I hunt there are more deer than the landowner & I can remember ever & they shoot a lot every year. I was hunting there when the population was at it's peak statewide.

[BuckSutherland]

You're right an 80 is only 1/8 of a square mile, but then if there were just 5 deer in that 80, which it sounds like there easily is, that would work out to 40 dpsm.

Rodd,

Smith may well have 5 deer on his property at all times, but I would bet the fields have very little most of the year and his woods may be better than most. It is an average of the whole area. Just because his 80 is a mecca for deer doesnt mean the other 560 acres have 35 deer on them. The math you are using is trying to compare apples and oranges.

My area of 172 I used to see 30-50 deer in the local field every night. Last time we were up there were 3 out there. There are big parts of the state where numbers are abysmally low. If there are too many deer in your area I think that some will eventually move out to neighboring areas.

[nonteepical]

213 is managed for 15-18 DSPM and is currently at 16 DPSM according to the DNR and is at goal.

[smsmith]

You're right an 80 is only 1/8 of a square mile, but then if there were just 5 deer in that 80, which it sounds like there easily is, that would work out to 40 dpsm.

There are perhaps that many deer on my place at different times throughout the day...they certainly do not live on my place all day/every day. Those same deer are on my neighbor's 40 across the road, another neighbor's 120 to the north of me, and most likely on my other two neighboring properties as well. I run cams on both ends of my place as that's where my mineral/salt stations are (also run a couple others on different trails/crossings/foodplots). All the deer I see are coming from/heading to neighboring properties. That makes sense...deer don't live on 80 acres. Especially when there are very few of them, get a larger herd and doe/fawn home ranges shrink.

The DNR estimate of pre-fawn dpsm in my area of 215 is about accurate I'd say...10. Seeing as I've still only got one fawn on cam (and by my own eye) the herd hasn't grown much with new fawns (in my immediate area anyway). When the vast majority of deer that survive a hunting season (verified by observation all last winter/early this spring as I was feeding them from early January through mid April) are fawns...the herd doesn't grow...it may in fact shrink in severe winters due to buck and fawn winterkill.

Unit 215 had better be Hunter Choice (Lottery even better) this year or I may just lose my mind

[PurpleFloyd]

Here are some fun facts for you guys interested in PA 214

2007 stakeholders goals showed the populations at 20 dpsm for that year.

2013 densities show at 20 dpsm

Goal for the area is 15-19 dpsm

Somebody PLEASE explain to me how the deer harvest can be down 35% AND there are 18% more firearms hunters in the woods from 2007 to 2013, and yet the deer population estimates are exactly the same????

It is NOT possible. Period.

More people are passing on the easy shots and waiting for a "Shooter" to walk by.

Actually it is a case of unintended consequences. At one time about a decade ago there was a concern about the hunter demographics trending upwards and not recruiting enough young hunters into the mix so they incorporated moves to bring in more young hunters such as letting kids sit with their dads, take a deer while sitting with their dad without paying for a license, Automatically letting youth take a deer of any sex etc and that worked, but it increased the number of hunters, more than likely reduced the deer herd and had a hand in the stats that you posted ( Understanding that it was not THE ONLY cause, but a contributing factor. Personally I am more than happy to not harvest a deer and help bring or young family members into the tradition and would rather see the look on the face of a young hunter as they harvest a deer than to hang a set of antlers on my own wall.

[PurpleFloyd]

So would someone want to chime in on what they feel the DPSM should be targeted at in the area these pictures were taken?

[smsmith]

Personally I am more than happy to not harvest a deer and help bring or young family members into the tradition and would rather see the look on the face of a young hunter as they harvest a deer than to hang a set of antlers on my own wall.

It always scares the cr$p out of me when I agree with you PF...but this is one of those times

[laker1]

The deer harvest chart does not say what kind seasons. Bet some of those early seasons were multi-deer and yes the number of deer available decreased over the years.

[Jameson]

So would someone want to chime in on what they feel the DPSM should be targeted at in the area these pictures were taken?

zero, well the second picture is maybe a couple with those trees not getting plowed up every winter.

And we should be like other states and not even count the land pictured in our dpsm numbers. Other states do it by area of habitat, not total area. We can, and should do the same for better deer management in this state. Heck, it would be very easy to do in the area pictured, a little more difficult where there is more variety to the landscape.

[smsmith]

Summertime or year round dpsm PF?

Drive through large parts of IA and what do you see? Lots of row crops with small wood lots interspersed. What kind of dpsms do you find in IA? 100+ in many areas.

[PurpleFloyd]

Summertime or year round dpsm PF?

Drive through large parts of IA and what do you see? Lots of row crops with small wood lots interspersed. What kind of dpsms do you find in IA? 100+ in many areas.

So you think the deer in the pictured area are snowbirds? Do they head to Arizona after harvest?

I guess just use the DPSM criteria you are using for your area whether it is seasonal or yearly and fire away.

[hockeybc69]

PF,

I don't have an argument with what you said about the numbers I posted and the contributing factors to lower harvests and more hunters in the woods....

That wasn't my point though.

My point is simply that there is no way possible that deer densities in 2007 were identical to todays densities and we have so many fewer deer being harvested, by MORE hunters sitting in the woods.

The DNR simply has no idea how many deer are in the woods, and this is a glaring point that they do not have a clue.

You cannot have almost 20% more people sitting in the woods in PA 214 versus 7 years ago, and shoot 35% less deer in that same timeframe. Its simply not possible unless the deer numbers are way below what the DNR thinks is there.

[smsmith]

PF,

I don't have an argument with what you said about the numbers I posted and the contributing factors to lower harvests and more hunters in the woods....

That wasn't my point though.

My point is simply that there is no way possible that deer densities in 2007 were identical to todays densities and we have so many fewer deer being harvested, by MORE hunters sitting in the woods.

The DNR simply has no idea how many deer are in the woods, and this is a glaring point that they do not have a clue.

You cannot have almost 20% more people sitting in the woods in PA 214 versus 7 years ago, and shoot 35% less deer in that same timeframe. Its simply not possible unless the deer numbers are way below what the DNR thinks is there.

Darn...just can't argue with facts

[smsmith]

I guess just use the DPSM criteria you are using for your area whether it is seasonal or yearly and fire away.

I have zero experience with habitat like that...so I'll bow out of the discussion

[PurpleFloyd]

PF,

I don't have an argument with what you said about the numbers I posted and the contributing factors to lower harvests and more hunters in the woods....

That wasn't my point though.

My point is simply that there is no way possible that deer densities in 2007 were identical to todays densities and we have so many fewer deer being harvested, by MORE hunters sitting in the woods.

The DNR simply has no idea how many deer are in the woods, and this is a glaring point that they do not have a clue.

You cannot have almost 20% more people sitting in the woods in PA 214 versus 7 years ago, and shoot 35% less deer in that same timeframe. Its simply not possible unless the deer numbers are way below what the DNR thinks is there.

No argument from me in reality. In theory you COULD if hunters prescribed to the "let everything except the mature 8 plus pt bucks pass" but clearly the majority of hunters are not as consumed with antler size and such as a minority is.(not saying you are one of them)So yeah, more hunters = more deer shot=reduced population=ticked off hunters when there are fewer deer to choose from.

[PurpleFloyd]

I guess just use the DPSM criteria you are using for your area whether it is seasonal or yearly and fire away.

[mntatonka]

Drive through large parts of IA and what do you see? Lots of row crops with small wood lots interspersed. What kind of dpsms do you find in IA? 100+ in many areas.

And how is that a good thing for anyone? The only person that benefits is the hunter, because he doesn't have to do anything to see a deer. Meanwhile, the rest of the landowners are losing money hand over fist just so the hunters don't [PoorWordUsage] and moan that they've got to get off their duffs to see a deer.

[smsmith]

And how is that a good thing for anyone? The only person that benefits is the hunter, because he doesn't have to do anything to see a deer. Meanwhile, the rest of the landowners are losing money hand over fist just so the hunters don't [PoorWordUsage] and moan that they've got to get off their duffs to see a deer.

Pretty sure IA farmers are doing just fine on yield. How is it a good thing? How many hunting shows do you see filmed in MN? How many from IA? IA's deer herd (even though it too has shrunk significantly) brings a boat load of money into the State. It also has created many jobs (not gooberment jobs either...). The rest of the landowners are losing money hand over fist? Really? I seriously doubt that. I'm sure there are homeowner complaints about damage to their landscape plants. I wouldn't call that "hand over fist".

Get off your duff to see a deer? Wow...that line of thinking is exactly what the MN DNR counts on from hunters here. Deer hunting isn't supposed to be some exercise in patience and perseverance. Perhaps if you are solely pursuing a mature buck it would be, but to go out and shoot a doe or young buck isn't supposed to require unbelievable woodsman-ship and a marathoner's dedication. Its supposed to be a fun, relaxing activity for hunters of all kinds. Its also supposed to be an activity in which taking a deer (not a big old buck....A DEER) isn't all that difficult. Tell the guy who has one day a year to hunt to just hunt harder. Tell the 85 year old guy who is lucky to be able to walk out to a chair 50 yards from his house to hunt to just hunt harder. Tell the 16 year old kid who is kind of interested in hunting (but not really sure yet) to just hunt harder.

Sheesh.........