Camp Ripley deer hunt results-stories from 1st season?

[Archerysniper]

.the only entity that wanted to ruin the Ripley hunt was one guy...Beau Liddell, the DNR area manager. Ripley officials have been concerned about the lower numbers and lower quality of animals coming out of Camp. At one time it was truly a world class hunt. No longer.

It's not just that area sadly, a lot of areas have been miss managed. However it really shows at ripley with such a big area and controlled hunts.

[smsmith]

It's not just that area sadly, a lot of areas have been miss managed. However it really shows at ripley with such a big area and controlled hunts.

I agree.

There are also areas with very, very good area managers who value the deer herd and recognize the economic importance of keeping a huntable population of deer around.

[kevfish1]

I do not think that they are concearned about providing anyone with a quality deer hunt in ripley. The purpose of the hunt is to thin and keep the herd at a level that does not hinder the people that train there. This hunt is a way that they can do this. Camp Ripley is a training area first and foremost. Hence the Wed/Thurs. hunt.

[Walleyehooker]

I think the MDHA sold burgers last year and had some breakfast stuff in the mornings.

[SmellEsox]

I do not think that they are concearned about providing anyone with a quality deer hunt in ripley. The purpose of the hunt is to thin and keep the herd at a level that does not hinder the people that train there. This hunt is a way that they can do this. Camp Ripley is a training area first and foremost. Hence the Wed/Thurs. hunt.

Seriously how do deer hinder people that train here?

[fishattacker]

I have been going to Camp Ripley to train for 20 years. At no time was I ever hindered by deer while training. Even back in the day when deer were thick and it was nothing to see does with triplets.

If you are on a live fire range you keep shooting. If a deer happened to walk in the way, to bad for the deer.

If a deer walked on the impact area and it was time to send rounds downrange, good luck.

[smsmith]

I do not think that they are concearned about providing anyone with a quality deer hunt in ripley. The purpose of the hunt is to thin and keep the herd at a level that does not hinder the people that train there. This hunt is a way that they can do this. Camp Ripley is a training area first and foremost. Hence the Wed/Thurs. hunt.

Wrong. Yes it is a training area first and foremost....Ripley officials certainly DO care about the hunt and at least some of them took pride in offering a world class hunt for many years.

Deer "hindering" soldiers....laughable

[SmellEsox]

I do not think that they are concearned about providing anyone with a quality deer hunt in ripley. The purpose of the hunt is to thin and keep the herd at a level that does not hinder the people that train there. This hunt is a way that they can do this. Camp Ripley is a training area first and foremost. Hence the Wed/Thurs. hunt.

The bolded statements I totally agree with. In fact, DNR doesn't seem to be concerned about hunt quality anywhere in MN in regards to deer.

[smsmith]

In fact, DNR doesn't seem to be concerned about hunt quality anywhere in MN in regards to deer.

Agree. My point was that some of the Ripley officials are/were concerned about hunt quality....NOT the DNR.

[Getanet]

So here’s my question for the complainers here, what exactly do you think the DNR is doing wrong with the Ripley hunt?

Ripley is about as ideal of conditions as you can get in terms of humans attempting to control a wild deer population. 53K private acres with only a few very controlled hunts throughout the year, with more tracking and analysis of harvested deer than anywhere else in the state. As far as I know it’s not open to the public during the rifle season, so the other typical scapegoat, party hunting and cross-tagging, isn’t an issue.

If the deer aren’t there, doesn’t seem to be because the DNR let hunters over harvest it. Or, if your contention is that they did let hunters over harvest it, then you shouldn’t really be complaining about this year’s low harvest and that the DNR needs to get it back to its glory days when harvest was much higher.

So let’s hear it. What exactly is the DNR doing wrong at Ripley that they can control?

[smsmith]

Or, if your contention is that they did let hunters over harvest it, then you shouldn’t really be complaining about this year’s low harvest and that the DNR needs to get it back to its glory days when harvest was much higher.

So let’s hear it. What exactly is the DNR doing wrong at Ripley that they can control?

I'm glad fewer deer were taken this year for the long term. The point is that the herd in Ripley should have never taken as low as it was (so yes...hunter overharvest)...just like in many areas of central and eastcentral MN.

Hunters play just as big of role in this situation as does the DNR. Just because the DNR will sell you tags doesn't mean you have to buy and fill them.

IF the area manager allows the herd to rebuild (as Leslie has stated needs to be done in the state) and this year is the first of the "correction" years...fanfreakingtastic. If this is a one year blip due to applied pressure and he goes back to whacking the dump out of the herd (he wanted no changes to the number of hunters and tags but was overridden)...then we really haven't gained anything.

[monstermoose78]

I will go out on twig here and say it is, because of the wolves. LOL. The DNR can not control the winters. The whiners want a million deer but they do not want to hit them with their car and trophy bucks behind every tree.

I still think Ripley is one of the hunts that allows the average hunter a shot a mature buck with out having to do any scouting. I have talked to a few people who said they saw deer during the first hunt, but did not want to shoot a doe or a small buck. Some were confused about the bonus tag deal and did not want to burn their only tag on a doe.

[SmellEsox]

So here’s my question for the complainers here, what exactly do you think the DNR is doing wrong with the Ripley hunt?

Ripley is about as ideal of conditions as you can get in terms of humans attempting to control a wild deer population. 53K private acres with only a few very controlled hunts throughout the year, with more tracking and analysis of harvested deer than anywhere else in the state. As far as I know it’s not open to the public during the rifle season, so the other typical scapegoat, party hunting and cross-tagging, isn’t an issue.

If the deer aren’t there, doesn’t seem to be because the DNR let hunters over harvest it. Or, if your contention is that they did let hunters over harvest it, then you shouldn’t really be complaining about this year’s low harvest and that the DNR needs to get it back to its glory days when harvest was much higher.

So let’s hear it. What exactly is the DNR doing wrong at Ripley that they can control?

To hunters Ripley was about an amazing opportunity to hunt big bucks. I would bet on a statewide basis, a high percentage of nonresident archery license sales were for Ripley alone because of the big buck allure. To DNR the hunt is all about reducing deer numbers. They couldn't care less about big bucks. That is why the hunt has gone downhill. DNR needs to think about hunt quality. Look at the decline in the number of big bucks coming out of there. It has happened since we started allowing increased antlerless harvest. DNR needs to be creative. Maintain the big buck appeal. If they want lower numbers of deer in there, at least protect young bucks so there is a good number of big bucks in there.

And don't think for a moment that harvest is low in there. Look at deer killed per square mile and I bet it is as high as anywhere else. Hunters are harvesting 5-6 dpsm in Camp. Add in predation by bears and wolves and and hunter harvest off Camp and you have significant deer mortality in there every year.

[SmellEsox]

I will go out on twig here and say it is, because of the wolves. LOL. The DNR can not control the winters. The whiners want a million deer but they do not want to hit them with their car and trophy bucks behind every tree.

I still think Ripley is one of the hunts that allows the average hunter a shot a mature buck with out having to do any scouting. I have talked to a few people who said they saw deer during the first hunt, but did not want to shoot a doe or a small buck. Some were confused about the bonus tag deal and did not want to burn their only tag on a doe.

I doubt it. There aren't that many wolves in there. I think maybe about a dozen at the most. They are a factor, but not a huge one. And they don't stay just in Camp either. They move on and off.

[mntatonka]

I doubt it. There aren't that many wolves in there. I think maybe about a dozen at the most. They are a factor, but not a huge one. And they don't stay just in Camp either. They move on and off.

and how many deer does the average wolf eat per year? I know I've seen the number somewhere, but can't remember it.

[smsmith]

and how many deer does the average wolf eat per year? I know I've seen the number somewhere, but can't remember it.

Depends on who you ask. I've seen anywhere from 8-30 in various reports. I think its pretty safe to assume somewhere in the neighborhood of 15-18 (conservatively)

[mntatonka]

Depends on who you ask. I've seen anywhere from 8-30 in various reports. I think its pretty safe to assume somewhere in the neighborhood of 15-18 (conservatively)

So conservatively, the "dozen" wolves in and around Ripley eat around 180 deer per year. How many do they chase off as well?

[SmellEsox]

So conservatively, the "dozen" wolves in and around Ripley eat around 180 deer per year. How many do they chase off as well?

Probably about as many as are chased in??? There's wolves around here. They aren't just in Camp.

[ANYFISH2]

Alright here is my insight (meaningless I am sure).

I began my interest and involvement at camp ripley in 1994 as a high school student in little falls. Later begining in 1996 and 1997 as a college intern for the environmental dept at camp and starting in 1998 as a participant in the annual bow hunt.

In high school while "down range" deed where nearly "vermin", thay were everywhere. Even our bud capping wouldn't stop the overbrowesing of white pines. Then the winters of '95-'96 and '96-'97 hit. I spent hours caseing wintering areas for winterkill/depredation. Then we would take a femur and check bone marrow for indication of winterkill. The kill those two winters was huge!! Devastating to the herd.

In 1998 the dnr lowered the hunters in the bow hunts to 1250 If my memory serves because of the low population. I remember talking to many hunters that year and all said it sucked, not the same ripley, mostwhere only seeing 8-10 deer per day!!

In future years up to about 2007 deer sightings for our group varied from (on average) 5-30 deer per day. After 2008 we began to see a nearly just as many hunters as deer. Last year was a "good year" between my partner and I we saw 16 deer for the weekend.

Afted looking at past results of the hunt yesterday (what I could find on the dnr site) we have been harvesting nearly 60% does for the last decade. Historically it was near 50-50. We have harvested between 300-500 animals for a decade. It has been too much!!!

I like they dropped things (hunters/bag limits) but I hope they drop the use of bonus tags in the future.

[Wanderer]

Thanks for adding your experienced perspective Anyfish.

All the participants of the Ripley hunt have their own reason for being there. Many are looking for the buck of a lifetime but quite a few see it as one of their best chances to have an opportunity to harvest A deer period. I think this mentality has developed more in the past decade with the availability of anterless tags.

Early on in my participation with the hunt, I asked a lot of questions. I wanted to understand what it was all about. I was told there was a huntable population of deer in the camp and the military was gracious enough to allow the DNR to manage permitted hunts. Nothing more, nothing less.

With the high degree of selectivity with the participants, the average deer age in Ripley was 2.5 years vs 1.5 years statewide when it was a person's main tag they were hunting on.

So, just like the rest of the state, Ripley got hit with the one, two punch... Liberal limits when deer numbers were high but falling, trailed by two really bad winters that were worse on the deer than we wanted to admit. Some compounding negatives and we get to where we're at. I really don't think there's much more to it than that.

It'll come back. Deer are renewable.

Does will die at a higher rate if they're considered a bonus anywhere in the state. Ripley is a bonus hunt to most people's season. How many of us plan to take a doe if we have the opportunity? Most likely, I will.

Take my bonus tag from me this year and will I? Maybe. Yes, if she's big. I'm not hunting deer alot this year but hope to get at least one. Ripley is still a good chance for that. Actually its some people's only chance to personally tag two deer this year.

I see the rules changing for next season.

[B. Amish]

how much of the area is off limits to hunter access?

53,000 acres is almost two entire townships. 83 square miles.

1,200 hunters in one small window.

i kind of ask how the heck does anyone ever shoot a mature buck out of this hunt at all?

[sticknstring]

Looking at the map, guessing 10-15% is in dudzone? (no hunting)

It's a numbers game. When you put 1-2 thousand hunters into an area that has the highest percentage of mature bucks in the state, a few will be taken.

Looks like another warm weekend for the 2nd hunt. I'll be buying a bonus tag in hopes to see something to shoot.

[smsmith]

how much of the area is off limits to hunter access?

53,000 acres is almost two entire townships. 83 square miles.

1,200 hunters in one small window.

i kind of ask how the heck does anyone ever shoot a mature buck out of this hunt at all?

Don't know how much of it is hunted, but using your numbers

1200 hunters/83 sq. miles = 14.5 hunters per sq. mile. A figure very much in line with hunter densities in much of central MN.

[B. Amish]

1,200 hunters scrambling trough the woods at once in the dark. i think a big buck could easily avoid that.

how many trophies get taken on this hunt each year? two? four? i think the suggestion of this being a great trophy hunt isn't there at all (not because they aren't they). mostly because of the randomness of it al, and not because the dnr is mismanaging it from a number standpoint.

[ANYFISH2]

I want to say(memory could be failing me af again), excluding cantonment("town" of camp ripley) and dud zones, thers is 36,000 acres.

Now in recent years camp has cleared another 3, 000 acres for new ranges, buildings and training sites. All this not including unhuntable open areas of which there are many in tbe southern half.