Expected worst Deer harvest in 20 years!

[laker1]

West of Onamia I think is covered by the office from Little Falls?

At least the south part of area 249 deer zone.

[smsmith]

West of Onamia I think is covered by the office from Little Falls?

At least the south part of area 249 deer zone.

The guy who reported the dead fawns to Leslie is just off the SW corner of Mille Lacs...222.

His primary area manager was Ted Dick, who is now on leave I believe. His secondary manager is Beau Liddell. Beau was "coaching" Ted as he was relatively new to the position...that's my understanding at any rate.

[delcecchi]

Isn't the northern border of wisconsin on average pretty much even with Aitkin? So the equivilent of the northern third of Minnesota is under lake Superior? And the southern border is nearly half way down Iowa?

And I went and looked at acres planted....

Principal Crops Area Planted - States and United States: 2012-2014

[Crops included in area planted are corn, sorghum, oats, barley, rye, winter

wheat, Durum wheat, other spring wheat, rice, soybeans, peanuts, sunflower,

cotton, dry edible beans, potatoes, sugarbeets, canola, and proso millet.

Harvested acreage is used for all hay, tobacco, and sugarcane in computing total

area planted. Includes double cropped acres and unharvested small grains planted

as cover crops]

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

State : 2012 : 2013 : 2014

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

: 1,000 acres

Minnesota ................. 20,009 19,454 20,142

Wisconsin .............: 8,098 7,951 8,243

(other states removed)

[laker1]

Isn't the northern border of wisconsin on average pretty much even with Aitkin? So the equivilent of the northern third of Minnesota is under lake Superior? And the southern border is nearly half way down Iowa?

Yes,that is what many people don't realize,much of Minnesota is north of the northern border of Wisconsin.

Also know that in Wisconsin along lake Superior it is Bucks only this year, a few years ago I know it was more than 6 deer you could shoot at least,

[smsmith]

Yes,that is what many people don't realize,much of Minnesota is north of the northern border of Wisconsin.

Also know that in Wisconsin along lake Superior it is Bucks only this year, a few years ago I know it was more than 6 deer you could shoot at least,

The northern half of WI is pretty much bucks only this year, due to their bad winter last year and too many doe tags being issued for too long. In WI a WSI anywhere over 100(ish) is considered "very severe"...here, because our deer are much tougher and have better food sources it takes a WSI of 180 before deer start to die from winter.

Most of WI isn't even as far north as where our DNR STARTS to consider winter's impact. So who's right? We share the same sub-species of whitetail..yet MN deer aren't considered to be suffering until they've experienced quite a few more days of deep snow and bitter cold.

As to the number of deer that could be harvested south of Lake Superior a few years ago...that would vary widely. In some areas, like Iron County I don't believe you could ever take more than 2. In others, like around Ashland there were nearly unlimited $2 bonus tags for does.

[laker1]

I think Wisconsin WSI index starts when they have 18 inches of snow on the ground than you start adding on also when it reaches 0 degrees F.

Minnesota WSI starts at 15 inches snow depth, than 0 degrees F. can be added,and for years Minnesota did say a WSI deer are stressed at 100. A WSI reading does not start until you get the 15 inches of snow. Maybe the 180 number is when very substantial losses occur?

Either way the Indexes are a little different.

[smsmith]

I think Wisconsin WSI index starts when they have 18 inches of snow on the ground than you start adding on also when it reaches 0 degrees F.

Minnesota WSI starts at 15 inches snow depth, than 0 degrees F. can be added,and for years Minnesota did say a WSI deer are stressed at 100. A WSI reading does not start until you get the 15 inches of snow. Maybe the 180 number is when very substantial losses occur?

Either way the Indexes are a little different.

Last winter the MN WSI changed. It went from considering 120 days as being "very severe" to 180 days being "severe".

Yes, the two indexes are different...by 3" of snow

[LandDr]

Thermal cover and food sources...controllable

Pulling the trigger...controllable

Winter weather...uncontrollable

DNR...uncontrollable

[docc8]

As I posted previously I firmly believe that the last 2 winters are what caused a severe decline of our deer herd in northern Minnesota. No matter what the DNR does that is out of our control. I believe bucks only is a first step. We are 0-7 with 0 bucks seen. I am not sure how much the wolves have played into the picture but they are definitely thick in our area. As stated before no does taken in 10 years and not taking bucks unless they are an 8 or better for 5-10 years and corresponding hunters in our area doing the same (probably for a 5 mile radius). I sure am eating crow as I passed on several 8 pointers and a small 10 the last 2 years.

[laker1]

Also the WSI is a index,and should be used as a indicator and maybe best case scenario?

As mentioned above the WSI starts at 15 inches of snow. But if you have 40 inches of snow you get no more points on the WSI than if you had 15 inches.

The same if it is 0 degrees or a -40 degrees F. I think you got 1 point over 15 inches of snow and 1 point temp. 0 degrees or colder per day.

I believe I am right on what I said,unless they changed the format in recent years?

[smsmith]

Also the WSI is a index,and should be used as a indicator and maybe best case scenario?

As mentioned above the WSI starts at 15 inches of snow. But if you have 40 inches of snow you get no more points on the WSI than if you had 15 inches.

The same if it is 0 degrees or a -40 degrees F. I think you got 1 point over 15 inches of snow and 1 point temp. 0 degrees or colder per day.

I believe I am right on what I said,unless they changed the format in recent years?

I believe you are correct. On a day with at least 15" of snow and a temp of 0 or lower, it would count for "2" on the WSI

[smsmith]

Thermal cover and food sources...controllable

Pulling the trigger...controllable

Winter weather...uncontrollable

DNR...uncontrollable

I completely agree on 1, 2, and 3. I only partially agree on 4. The DNR is a government agency, and as such are responsible to those they serve. They can't just make things up as they go and never get called on the carpet. We certainly wouldn't allow the rest of our government to go unchecked without voicing our concerns...correct? A casual perusal of "silly town" makes that abundantly clear to me...there seems to be no aversion on many folks' part to call for accountability on all levels of government...except the DNR anyway.

[J_D]

They don't call it deer killing for a reason, enjoy the season. I have spent a lot of time in the woods this fall/winter and that's what its about, not complaining about a government agency! Seems your passing the blame!

[smsmith]

They don't call it deer killing for a reason, enjoy the season. I have spent a lot of time in the woods this fall/winter and that's what its about, not complaining about a government agency! Seems your passing the blame!

You're entitled to your opinion. I've spent quite a bit of time in the woods this fall as well. I live in the woods, so I have a pretty good fix on what's going on around me. Not sure how I'm passing the blame...but whatever. I haven't participated in the slaughter here, I'm just feeling the effects of it.

[PurpleFloyd]

Yes,that is what many people don't realize,much of Minnesota is north of the northern border of Wisconsin.

Also know that in Wisconsin along lake Superior it is Bucks only this year, a few years ago I know it was more than 6 deer you could shoot at least,

Yep. I used to live in Wisconsin right on Superior and still have a bit of woods there that we co own with relatives. Back in the 80's and 90's you could basically take 6 deer a year by buying tags for all the seasons plus bonus tags. That went on for a long time but IMHO the population headed south when the wolf population established itself. They also planted elk in 1995 and started with 25 but the population has only grown to a bit over 150 in the 2 decades they have been there which IMO is being limited by wolf predation as well.

When we get up there we were used to seeing a pretty large herd that was always sustaining itself even with the pressure the hunters put on the population with all the extra tags but the wolves have knocked the herd back in recent years and we see fewer deer the last 2 years than we ever have. I know the reduction is not from more hunters because this area is pretty redneck and the land is private and locked up so there has been no influx of hunters to account for the reduction. (And a certain MNDNR employee has no impact on this area either)

[PurpleFloyd]

They don't call it deer killing for a reason, enjoy the season. I have spent a lot of time in the woods this fall/winter and that's what its about, not complaining about a government agency!

Amen and a +1

[smsmith]

Its quite aways from the big lake to Clam Lake isn't it P.F.?

[Bureaucrat]

Anyone catching the chatter in the Red Lake forum about the walleye limit reduction to 3 from 4? Everyone is tripping over themselves in there to share their happiness or contentment with the decision, and there is almost no concern or outrage over the reduction.

It's very interesting to me that the conversation and sides are so different in the deer discussion. It seems most everyone agrees that the deer populations are down. Why is still up for grabs, but everyone is almost united in the decision to stabilize or grow the walleye herd and indifferent or outright against growing or being concerned about the deer herd.

I tried baiting PF over there, and he didn't bite. Bravo sir.

[smsmith]

MN is a walleye state...not a deer state

[PurpleFloyd]

Its quite aways from the big lake to Clam Lake isn't it P.F.?

No.

77-13

45 minutes.

[PurpleFloyd]

Anyone catching the chatter in the Red Lake forum about the walleye limit reduction to 3 from 4? Everyone is tripping over themselves in there to share their happiness or contentment with the decision, and there is almost no concern or outrage over the reduction.

[hockeybc69]

Need smaller bucks to be in the woods to fill the "livewell".

MDDI isnt about bigger bucks. Its about deer.

[delcecchi]

Anyone catching the chatter in the Red Lake forum about the walleye limit reduction to 3 from 4? Everyone is tripping over themselves in there to share their happiness or contentment with the decision, and there is almost no concern or outrage over the reduction.

It's very interesting to me that the conversation and sides are so different in the deer discussion. It seems most everyone agrees that the deer populations are down. Why is still up for grabs, but everyone is almost united in the decision to stabilize or grow the walleye herd and indifferent or outright against growing or being concerned about the deer herd.

I tried baiting PF over there, and he didn't bite. Bravo sir.

Some reasons...

People don't get killed or injured by colliding with a walleye.

(what is the value of a human life?)

Walleye don't adversely affect an economic asset by eating all the young trees that would otherwise grow into big trees.

Walleye don't affect crop yields of the farmers.

Walleye can't get Chronic Wasting Disease or any other disease possibly fatal to humans.

Walleye don't eat folks shrubs and apple trees. There are some rabbits around that are living on borrowed time though.

That's about what I can come up with on short notice.

[Bureaucrat]

Just thought it was interesting. I once knew an old man that talked about how he wanted to shoot bald eagles (he never got one, nor could he) because he was trying to save the ducks and loons on his lake.

Then there was the beavers that built the dam that made the lake in the woods possible. He wanted to kill them. I enjoyed fishing the lake.

People's view of natural resources is always an interesting discussion to say the least.

[hockeybc69]

Quote:

Some reasons...

People don't get killed or injured by colliding with a walleye.

(what is the value of a human life?)

Then we must eradicate all deer. One life lost is too many.

Walleye don't adversely affect an economic asset by eating all the young trees that would otherwise grow into big trees.

I am pretty sure deer have been on the landscape for eons, and I see mature trees all over MN.

Walleye don't affect crop yields of the farmers.

Do racoons, bears, geese, cranes, etc affect crop yields? If so, we might want to address those critters a bit more.

Walleye can't get Chronic Wasting Disease or any other disease possibly fatal to humans.

Possibly fatal to humans? Speculation?

Walleye don't eat folks shrubs and apple trees. There are some rabbits around that are living on borrowed time though.

I have shrubs and apple trees. We spray targeted plants with a mix of irish spring soap and water, and my apple trees are all caged and have never had one problem with deer bothering them.