Expected worst Deer harvest in 20 years!

[DaveT]

[DaveT]

Right on. Can't wait for you or Crappie's recap and pics of your annual Kansas hunt

At this point we're 2 for 6 with one that got away. Had some trouble with dogs running deer on the property and may have mistimed our trip as we didn't see a lot of activity (could have been the effing dogs). CR and dad are going back down this weekend so the re-cap is off for at least a few more days...

[mntatonka]

It's really sounding more and more like it's a single area of the state that has problems with their area manager. It certainly seems likely that he's not doing his job properly while the rest of the managers in the state are doing their best. Rather than throwing the entire DNR under the bus, it seems like you should be pushing completely against this one person. It sounds to me like he should have been replaced some time ago.

Sure, the arrowhead has dropped in population drastically, but that can be attributed to extreme winters rather than the area managers. Much of the southwest apparently has more deer than they've had in the last decade, so that seems to be a success. The southeast is a trainwreck due to certain regulations, but that's a whole different debate and not the fault of the area managers that didn't want the regulations in the first place.

[ANYFISH2]

The way to make ALL hunters happy is to have more deer on the landscape. This gives the most opportunity to all types of hunters. You get more deer by limiting antlerless harvest for awhile and then gradually allowing increased antlerless harvest. Up north, it will be what it will be with winters and wolves, but in the NW, central and SE, we could sustainably have higher deer numbers.

SmellEsox, I would like to add, that after our population get back to robust (gee I hope it allowed to happen), I would lime to see a more conservative approach in maintaining that population. I think most of area in a line from the SE to the NW, could sustain a managed designation (especially if it would change to 1 buck, 1 doe, no more shooting 2 does), but the DNR being a bit faster to drop to HC or lottery when signs of decline appear.

Ups and downs will always be the norm considering our unique climate/weather. However, I would like to see more of a effort to maintain a quality (#s wise) population after we get there.

[smsmith]

It's really sounding more and more like it's a single area of the state that has problems with their area manager. It certainly seems likely that he's not doing his job properly while the rest of the managers in the state are doing their best. Rather than throwing the entire DNR under the bus, it seems like you should be pushing completely against this one person. It sounds to me like he should have been replaced some time ago.

Sure, the arrowhead has dropped in population drastically, but that can be attributed to extreme winters rather than the area managers. Much of the southwest apparently has more deer than they've had in the last decade, so that seems to be a success. The southeast is a trainwreck due to certain regulations, but that's a whole different debate and not the fault of the area managers that didn't want the regulations in the first place.

I'd agree that a single manager is responsible for quite a few of the complaints I've heard, however...it is not just that individual. He is secondary manager for a few areas as well as being a primary in others...and I believe that he has been a "go to guy" due to close alliances in St. Paul. There are other area managers in central MN who are saying some unusual things...like the area manager in hockey's unit.

This isn't a "witch hunt"...in order to find out if some of what has been going on (is still going on) is indeed outside the norm, the only way to do so is via going over the numbers/data/etc. If managing for lower densities than the public stakeholder team recommended and what the DNR states are the managed for dpsm's is "okay"...great. If recommending early antlerless and continued Intensive harvest in a unit where aerial surveys show 7.2 dpsm is "okay"...great. If allowing bonus tags in Ripley when the projected harvest is 70% off the 10 year historical average is "okay"...great.

Let's just get it all on the table and go from there. The only way that gets done is to throw DNR modeling/data collection/recalibration "under the bus" as you state. These "unusual" methods of management have been brought to St. Paul's and legislators' attention...nothing has been done..at least nothing that is available publicly. When you have a government employee who appears to be betraying the public trust...don't expect those who feel betrayed to sit down and shut up.

[hockeybc69]

The only way we are going to get there is if we get realistic density goals set and that is the biggest challenge of all.

With the stakeholders process staring us in the face for parts of central MN, if things arent addressed and adjusted there, we can kiss our wishes goodbye I think.... The land of mediocrity will continue.

[Farmsfulltime]

A large portion of zone 2 will revert back to managed next season to help lower populations in so called hot spots , If you don't have enough deer now don't fill two tags

[ANYFISH2]

It's really sounding more and more like it's a single area of the state that has problems with their area manager. It certainly seems likely that he's not doing his job properly while the rest of the managers in the state are doing their best. Rather than throwing the entire DNR under the bus, it seems like you should be pushing completely against this one person. It sounds to me like he should have been replaced some time ago.

Sure, the arrowhead has dropped in population drastically, but that can be attributed to extreme winters rather than the area managers. Much of the southwest apparently has more deer than they've had in the last decade, so that seems to be a success. The southeast is a trainwreck due to certain regulations, but that's a whole different debate and not the fault of the area managers that didn't want the regulations in the first place.

He is just an example, and local for many of us. He is a smart guy, and seems to manage by his own philosophy only.

However, I doesn't start and stop with him. Things seem, for all intents and purposes, that our population modeling is flawed. Whether it is from not being properly calibrated or it just doesn't work, its flawed. If bad data is given to ANY AREA MANAGER, on top of low or high density goals, how can the manager suggest the proper strategy for area? This in my opinion nearly makes their job nearly impossible, the deer managment program from top (especially) to bottom needs a restart/clean slate with accurate information.

[smsmith]

the deer managment program from top (especially) to bottom needs a restart/clean slate with accurate information.

On that we can agree completely

[delcecchi]

Absolutely true...but a bit of restraint on the DNRs part a couple years earlier would have been welcome.

Maybe you ought to give the DNR a subscription to the Old Farmer's Almanac so they could predict the coming winter severity prior to setting the regulations.

Iowa has a huge advantage in that winter weather is not a factor in deer survival.

[smsmith]

Maybe you ought to give the DNR a subscription to the Old Farmer's Almanac so they could predict the coming winter severity prior to setting the regulations.

Iowa has a huge advantage in that winter weather is not a factor in deer survival.

The decline in the herd has been going on for a decade...it wasn't the last two winters...one of which ('12-'13) was not even considered at all severe enough in central MN to have an impact on the herd. The other ('13-'14) was only recognized as impacting the herd from about Camp Ripley north. Leslie has stated repeatedly that the herd is not down in central MN

[jay83196]

That's ridiculous! The herd is down and if it's not why in 2 years time did my area in central mn go from intensive harvest to lottery? Less bonus tags sold means less $ no way the DNR did that if not to help the herd. I hunt 2 locations in central mn, have several buddies hunt different locations and the herd is significantly down. I see far less deer on my food plots on my cameras and just in the wild less deer less sign seen etc.

[leech~~]

Oh I don't know? From DNR report.

Coldest Winters in Twin Cities History: 1873-2014

The winter of 2013-14 from December-February in the Twin Cities was the coldest Meteorological Winter in 35 years. The average winter temperature in the Twin Cities was be 9.7 degrees, or nine degrees below normal. This is the coldest winter since 1978-79 which was 9.4 degrees. February 2014 wound up being in a three-way tie for the 7th coldest and was also the 6th snowiest.

Coldest Winters in the Twin Cities: 1872-73 to 2013-14

1981-2010 Normal: 18.7 degrees F

Winter Avg Temp (F) Rank

---------------------------

1874-1875 4.0 1

1886-1887 5.7 2

1935-1936 7.3 3

1872-1873 7.9 4

1903-1904 8.4 5

1916-1917 8.5 6

1882-1883 9.2 7

1978-1979 9.4 8

2013-2014 9.7 9

1887-1888 10.0 10

1884-1885 10.1 11

1917-1918 10.4 12

1977-1978 10.5 13

1962-1963 11.2 14

1961-1962 11.3 15

Last modified: March 3, 2014

[laker1]

The only thing I will offer is what the weather people mention. The average or mean may have been colder. We didn't have the extreme cold temperatures. The nights were averaging times above or at normal,the problem was day time temperatures were much colder than normal.

[smsmith]

I'm not saying the last two winters didn't have an impact on the herd south of Ripley....the DNR did...during and after both of them.

Meanwhile, I sat in a meeting with several DNR folks and legislators in February last year. Paul Telander told the legislators that due to the winter of the '12-'13 the DNR had responded by going more conservative in season structure for '13. When I pointed out to him and the legislators that there MORE Intensive and Managed units in '13 than there were in '12...he began talking in circles.

You can't have it both ways. If the last two winters had an impact on the herd, then say it. Don't blow up smoke up our arses and say the herd in central MN is just fine.

[laker1]

Winter of 2012-13 was very tough on deer in the northern half of the state with 20 inches on the ground by Mille lacs,still the middle of April and B season of turkeys. I hunted on snowshoes during the B season.

It was not that hard to find dead fawns.

2012-2013 deer were doing real good until Mid March than winter just held in there with snow depth still increasing.

Yes the deer herd did start to decrease after 2003 because of over harvest. But the last two winters were tough on the population. When your herd is made up a high percentage of young animals,the winter is harder on the population with higher die-off.

You look over the years winter die-off usually begins from around Brainerd north. That can go either way so many miles.

[smsmith]

Brainerd is about 40-50 miles north of me. No significant winter kill here the last two winters according to the DNR. Leslie was surprised to hear that a guy was finding dead fawns near Onamia last year. She attributed those deaths to the fawns being hit by cars, then dying on the person's property. Winter doesn't kill deer that far south

[hockeybc69]

If populations are in fact depressed then why does our deer czar hide it by saying this years harvest is not indicitive of populations?

They refuse to admit times are tough. Why?

[laker1]

Sometimes because the State is so long north to south,like 400 miles.

When we talk deer herd we shouldn't even talk total state deer harvest. Maybe like divide it into three section,it would be much more relevant and mean more for the deer herds health and hunter perspective in each zone.

Like the Ely area because of less anterless permits harvest is down like 72% and buck harvest is down 42%. I think anterless is like 1% harvest compared to last year.

You can't compare deer populations from Ely and southeastern Minnesota in the same breath. The DNR and the public is guilty of that. Total statewide harvest is almost meaningless.

[smsmith]

Can WI compare deer harvest from Beloit to Bayfield then?

[smsmith]

If populations are in fact depressed then why does our deer czar hide it by saying this years harvest is not indicitive of populations?

They refuse to admit times are tough. Why?

I'd really like to know that too. From what I can tell via DNR press releases, the only part of the state where the herd is indeed down over previous years is in NE MN. Everywhere else its just hunky dory.

[laker1]

Brainerd is about 40-50 miles north of me. No significant winter kill here the last two winters according to the DNR. Leslie was surprised to hear that a guy was finding dead fawns near Onamia last year. She attributed those deaths to the fawns being hit by cars, then dying on the person's property. Winter doesn't kill deer that far south

You could of talked to the Brainerd-Aitkin DNR Wildlife office and they would of told her and you also that they knew and admitted there was dead fawns. Sometimes the fiels staff gets ignored also.

Lack of communications from field office to St. Paul.

[laker1]

Not familiar with Wisconsin.

[smsmith]

Beloit to Bayfield is about 380 miles, pretty much due north

[smsmith]

You could of talked to the Brainerd-Aitkin DNR Wildlife office and they would of told her and you also that they knew and admitted there was dead fawns. Sometimes the fiels staff gets ignored also.

Lack of communications from field office to St. Paul.

Yup, in the areas that office covers they recognized winter kill. My area is covered by the office in Little Falls. I believe Onamia is covered by the office in Cambridge. Both of those offices have some personnel in common