Expected worst Deer harvest in 20 years!

[nonteepical]

Less deer shot rebuild the herd, more for next year. Glass half full.

[ANYFISH2]

Less deer shot rebuild the herd, more for next year. Glass half full.

+1

Of course a lot will depend on how this stinkin winter turns out.

[smsmith]

Of course a lot will depend on how this stinkin winter turns out.

Not looking real promising right now

[Red Miller]

My brother up in Anchorage said they had 52 degrees this morning (that's +52!)and no snow on the ground yet. Don't we normally get Alaska's weather about a month later? I'm hopin' anyway.

[nonteepical]

It's just hurricane/tropical storm leftovers pushing the arctic air.

[smsmith]

Long range forecast (for whatever good they are) is not looking promising. Think there were 3 days with highs above freezing in the 45 day forecast.

[ANYFISH2]

At this rate here in morrison/todd county ville we will be starting to rack up WSI points tomorrow. Looks worse south yet. Oh, yeah central mn comes out fine in winter, nothin to worry about.

[smsmith]

At this rate here in morrison/todd county ville we will be starting to rack up WSI points tomorrow. Looks worse south yet. Oh, yeah central mn comes out fine in winter, nothin to worry about.

Sarcasm duly noted

I find it humorous (twisted humor I guess) that the poor results for Ripley are largely being blamed by last winter....when a good portion of Camp is pretty much ignored by the DNR when considering WSI. Can't have it both ways...if winter has an impact on deer in central MN, then management should reflect that (i.e. going to lottery the year after a bad winter instead of increasing the number of Managed and Intensive units).

[nonteepical]

Sky won't be falling till March. Back on topic seen 1 doe and 2 fawns over weekend 213. Didn't hunt my 240 property this year letting it rest maybe hunt it muzzle to see what made it.

[ANYFISH2]

All joking aside, so far through bow season and first weekend of rifle, I am optimistic for next season. I have seen way more fawns than expected and good numbers of does. And as of yesterday no does have been killed on the properties I hunt. The sound of hunters by our public land spot is the same a fair amount of does and fawns. I not sure if any will be harvested as no one, literally no one got a doe tag.

If winter cooperates, improvements will be seen next year.

I am more than ok with low harvest this year.

[leech~~]

Some times it kind of suk's being a Deer Hunter and Snowmobiler. In one hand you want a ton of snow for riding and the other you want a good strong deer herd.

[wally243]

Once the Muzzi and bow hunters get out in this snow they will get the does your speaking of!!!!! Makes a lot of sense don't it.

[leech~~]

Once the Muzzi and bow hunters get out in this snow they will get the does your speaking of!!!!! Makes a lot of sense don't it.

wally243, you replied to my post but I don't remember making the statement?

the does your speaking of!!!!!? Was this in response to someone else?

[wally243]

No it was not meant to be at anyone. Just a general statement concerned about anyfish's does. Seems that if someone wants a doe they will get one no matter what the gun regs are????

[ANYFISH2]

I am sure some will travel and maybe be harvested. My private lands are safe if they stay, as I am the only hunter and no does will be shot on those properties. I feel safe to say far more are alive after this than if the regs where the same as in the past.

[wally243]

I am a huge advocate of needing does before you can have deer and I like your thinking. I also know that everyone that I know kills the amount of deer they want to eat. Most of these people think shooting small bucks is a sin, which I think is backwards but who am I to say. Weather it means buying a muzzle loader tag or a bow tag. In your secluded area it may be beneficial for you and it may not. At the end of the day the number of does shot can not be regulated by the state when there is no restriction on the late season hunters. This is a hindrance to our state overall. The other thing is if you have a small area of high deer numbers in an otherwise low density area you raise your risk of other factors hurting your population such as wolves. I like the way you think, but you might need some help from our fellow hunters and the DNR.

[Deet]

Report:

Big woods of northern MN (Chippewa Nat'l Forest)

We had two chances at deer in the first 2.5 days (missed both). Over 80 man-hours in the stand for our group, most of whom are serious deer hunters.

After facing the facts, we moved closer to civilization and started having chances at deer the last couple days. Scored two finally.

This is just estimation , but we agreed the rifle shots heard through the weekend were less than half of last year, and probably 10% or less of "normal" modern years (2006 - 2012).

[hockeybc69]

DNR reports first 3 days of gun season, 54k deer were harvested in 2014. A drop of 30k from the 2013 season over the first 3 days.

“Comparing this year’s harvest to harvests in previous years doesn’t necessarily reflect hunter opportunity or the number of deer on the landscape in 2014,” said Leslie McInenly

Nope. Nothing to see here. Populations are just fine.

[Getanet]

These numbers aren't too surprising, given that so much of the state was bucks only or lottery this year. Heck, the title of this thread summarizes what the DNR expected...

Based on reports I've been reading though, it seems to be either feast or famine with some areas seeing plenty of deer and others seeing next to nothing at all.

It will be interesting to see what they do next, and if they entertain the idea of closing the season at some point in the next year or two. I can't image it's legal or practical to only close certain sections of the state.

Good luck this weekend folks.

[Xplorer]

http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/content/deer-harvest-down-52-percent-early-season

[PurpleFloyd]

Well, the weather certainly did not impact the harvest......

[mntatonka]

These numbers aren't too surprising, given that so much of the state was bucks only or lottery this year. Heck, the title of this thread summarizes what the DNR expected...

Based on reports I've been reading though, it seems to be either feast or famine with some areas seeing plenty of deer and others seeing next to nothing at all.

It will be interesting to see what they do next, and if they entertain the idea of closing the season at some point in the next year or two. I can't image it's legal or practical to only close certain sections of the state.

Good luck this weekend folks.

it's completely legal and practical for them to do whatever they want in regards to closing certain parts of the state. However, having low number of lottery permits, or buck only areas, has been proven in the past to work to bring populations up. It will continue to do so over the next couple of years.

[jay83196]

No way could I see them closing the season too much lost $$. I agree with statement they expected these low results and it's probably needed. I hunt two areas one was lottery or hunters choice many years other was intensive harvest many years then management and now lottery. I can see over the past few years how the two areas have declined the one that was intensive harvest used to be awesome more deer than could imagine the other was good but not the same as the ither now it's twice as good as the other. What I think is unfortunate is the mis managing by the dnr of some areas and it is a huge issue and part of the cause. Like I said many posts ago no reason any area (unless in areas in or close to the cities for safety reasons, car accidents etc that needs population control), should be intensive for multiple years, it's just ignorant on the part of the management. Now the one area I hunt is terrible and in the past it was great with great numbers but because hunters would take 4-5 deer year after year in addition to bad winters it's now terrible. Talk to some registration stations one owner of a gas station/bait store that registered Alot of deer said the same guys would shoot anything fawns spike bucks etc anything to fill 5 tags. Can't tell me that doesn't hurt the heard year after year. Granted the hunters are to blame but and some guys probably would illegally still do it but lets not make it easy by having intensive harvest in areas in the first place! WI has bad winters also and I don't believe they have this issue like this......

[Getanet]

it's completely legal and practical for them to do whatever they want in regards to closing certain parts of the state. However, having low number of lottery permits, or buck only areas, has been proven in the past to work to bring populations up. It will continue to do so over the next couple of years.

It's probably legal, but I don't see it being practical. If they closed certain areas and left others open, don't you think hunters from closed areas would flood the public land in areas that remained open? Certainly some would just not hunt, or perhaps go out of state, but more than likely you'd be cramming more hunters into the areas that remained open, putting more pressure on the deer there and upsetting lot of hunters who suddenly have many more hunters in the area.

[CANOPY SAM]

I'm sorry guys, but is this conversation really worth having?

The overall "average" number of tags filled each year, or in other words "hunter success" statistics, are actually surprisingly low each year compared to the actual number of tags issued. Every year good (and/or lucky) hunters fill their tags, and lots and lots of people don't.

Now, faced with a couple really tough winters, and a few bad historical decisions in particular "intensive harvest" zones, they've (the DNR) instituted a regulation calling for one deer per person statewide this season, and that's all.

And we're so statistically challenged that we can't figure out on our own that this will result in record low harvest numbers?

I really don't mean to be condescending here, but it seems pretty transparent that the damage is done, and all we can do now is be patient, make the best of the current regs, and hope the next few winters are a little more mild, and relatively snow free.

To say they "expected" low harvest numbers makes it sound like there is some kind of hidden, mysterious agenda going on in secret offices of the MN DNR. It's really not complicated math.

Markedly fewer tags issued in a year where it's known there are markedly fewer animals to harvest will ultimately result in markedly fewer deer harvested. Considering all the variables at play here, I think it's a pretty good strategy to improve the herd numbers in the coming years.