Expected worst Deer harvest in 20 years!

[PurpleFloyd]

I disagree, but would love to have a discussion on it as that is where the problem and solution lies and not on the method of modeling an agency uses.

[leech~~]

I don't discount the impact of a bad winter on deer in the northern 1/4-1/3 of the state. I realize those impacts can indeed be significant. My point is that saying that winter takes more deer than hunters is a pile of horse manure.

I agree, I think we take out more on the highways each year then maybe the winter does. sometimes it's just sicking counting dead deer on the sides of roads on a long ride up north!

[smsmith]

Really, I seem to remember that we both agreed and were very interested in habitat. I actually enjoy the postings that you made when talking about habitat and I believe we would have very common beliefs on how that is the best way to make sure the herd has what it needs. Debate is what makes every discussion better.

As I've stated here before...I discuss habitat elsewhere. Yup...I can talk habitat for hours..but I'd bet you would point out other "possibilities" to anything I had to say about habitat.

You appear to enjoy being a contrarian just for the sake of the debate. No real reason to participate in that type of debate because you have zero interest in reaching any "resolutions" or "solutions"...you simply want to keep the debate going for entertainment's sake.

[Bureaucrat]

Yeah!!!!! The deer debate came back to life!!!

It's cool to see support for the audit vs opposition to the audit running over 100 for to every 1 against.

On weather, mother nature didn't give us intensive harvest, management areas, and early antlerless seasons.

[creepworm]

It's cool to see support for the audit vs opposition to the audit running over 100 for to every 1 against.

You can thank the Green Bay Gazette and their article on "MN Deer" for all the support.

[SmellEsox]

Define accurate. There is no reasonable way to get any model into the future with any type of accuracy because nature incorporates too many variables into the equation to every be able to predict anything with any certainty. If you expect that your are expecting something that just isn't possible. If you accept a degree of variation that would allow you to predict within the range that could be expected due to natural factors, the variation will be so great as to not be any more useful than the SWAG method.

What can and should be focused on is allowing the habitat that is under public control to grow up to provide the best habitat it is capable of producing without major human intervention. This would be a much better bang for the buck and would ensure that when conditions are right, that the deer would have the best chance of having the food and shelter they need to bring every generation through the seasons.

As to the 5 permit statement, the only number that matters in the end is total harvest and not number of permits issued. Whether one person takes 5 or they increase the normal permit number so 5 individuals can take one you are offering a specific number of permits. I personally would not support anyone getting more than one permit so I am not in any way advocating it, but in the end they issue X number of permits and who gets them and how many each get is just a distribution issue.

Deer license revenue should generate enough cash to do more frequent flights. There just needs to be more priority placed on deer. That should help.

As far as permits is concerned, you can't assume the population will increase if harvest is declining and you keep harvest pressure high on does. It depends on what is being harvested and at what rate and how many deer were there in the first place whether your herd will increase or continue to slide. So you have to do some level of sampling that reduces your variation in your estimate. They could do that by being more intensive in deer monitoring.

The nationwide decline in deer numbers has more to do with antlerless harvest than any other factor. All states have been hammering does for the last 10-15 years. Now we are seeing the effects of this management.

I agree that habitat could be improved in some areas, but in the transition zone, we are no where near any kind of biological carrying capacity.

[Bear55]

I don't discount the impact of a bad winter on deer in the northern 1/4-1/3 of the state. I realize those impacts can indeed be significant. My point is that saying that winter takes more deer than hunters is a pile of horse manure.

How old are you? Winter can be the single biggest killer out there and its not even close. That doesn't mean the last two winters killed more deer than hunters or car or however you want to stack them up but when winter turns up the snow and cold you seem to have no idea the damage that can be done.

[smsmith]

How old are you? Winter can be the single biggest killer out there and its not even close. That doesn't mean the last two winters killed more deer than hunters or car or however you want to stack them up but when winter turns up the snow and cold you seem to have no idea the damage that can be done.

In 50 years I'll be 100

You're telling me that winter kills more deer in the state of MN than hunters?

I'm not sure what you're wanting me to say? I acknowledged that winter has the ability to kill lots of deer in northern MN...the last two winters were pretty tough. Did more than 100K deer die in MN due to winterkill those two winters?

[creepworm]

100,000 deer did not have to die in those 2 winters. Harder winters, even if they did not actually kill the adult deer have a negative effect on fawning. Then you throw in cold temps and monsoons during the time that the fawns are hitting the ground and you have compounded the problem.

Weather does not have to kill the adult deer to have a very significant effect on the population.

[PurpleFloyd]

100,000 deer did not have to die in those 2 winters. Harder winters, even if they did not actually kill the adult deer have a negative effect on fawning. Then you throw in cold temps and monsoons during the time that the fawns are hitting the ground and you have compounded the problem.

Weather does not have to kill the adult deer to have a very significant effect on the population.

Bingo

[mntatonka]

100,000 deer did not have to die in those 2 winters. Harder winters, even if they did not actually kill the adult deer have a negative effect on fawning. Then you throw in cold temps and monsoons during the time that the fawns are hitting the ground and you have compounded the problem.

Weather does not have to kill the adult deer to have a very significant effect on the population.

the problem is, that the DNR isn't quick enough to realize when we've had a herd loss from weather and lower the harvest limits in these years.

[smsmith]

100,000 deer did not have to die in those 2 winters. Harder winters, even if they did not actually kill the adult deer have a negative effect on fawning. Then you throw in cold temps and monsoons during the time that the fawns are hitting the ground and you have compounded the problem.

Weather does not have to kill the adult deer to have a very significant effect on the population.

I think there's two different discussions going on here.

One is that winter has a greater impact on the herd than hunting.

The other is that winter has AN impact on the herd.

[SmellEsox]

the problem is, that the DNR isn't quick enough to realize when we've had a herd loss from weather and lower the harvest limits in these years.

Exactly! They didn't want to lower limits in central MN this past season. In my area, the manager wanted 5 deer plus early antlerless. Apparently he doesn't think that winter has an impact on deer here.

I don't think anyone on here doesn't think that winter has an impact, especially north of the transition zone. I even think it is underestimated in the transition zone, especially by DNR. I'd like to see them manage on the conservative side on the upper end of their population goals rather than whack them down below goal or to the lower end of goal. In fact, I'd be fine with sustained harvests of 180k if it meant there were more deer on the landscape.

[smsmith]

Exactly! They didn't want to lower limits in central MN this past season. In my area, the manager wanted 5 deer plus early antlerless. Apparently he doesn't think that winter has an impact on deer here.

I don't think anyone on here doesn't think that winter has an impact, especially north of the transition zone. I even think it is underestimated in the transition zone, especially by DNR. I'd like to see them manage on the conservative side on the upper end of their population goals rather than whack them down below goal or to the lower end of goal. In fact, I'd be fine with sustained harvests of 180k if it meant there were more deer on the landscape.

Yup...and that was after two bad winters in a row.

To say "the DNR can't predict the weather" is accurate. To give them a free pass is another. The winter of '12-'13 lasted until May...the DNR response was to liberalize Intensive and Managed units in the fall of '13. They couldn't predict the bad winter of '12-'13....but they sure as heck could have responded in '13 with a more conservative antlerless harvest.

To think that an area manager would be advocating for Intensive as well as early antlerless after two bad winters in a row and an aerial survey showing less than 8 deer per square mile certainly screams either incompetence or agenda to me.

[PurpleFloyd]

Yup...and that was after two bad winters in a row.

To say "the DNR can't predict the weather" is accurate. To give them a free pass is another. The winter of '12-'13 lasted until May...the DNR response was to liberalize Intensive and Managed units in the fall of '13. They couldn't predict the bad winter of '12-'13....but they sure as heck could have responded in '13 with a more conservative antlerless harvest.

To think that an area manager would be advocating for Intensive as well as early antlerless after two bad winters in a row and an aerial survey showing less than 8 deer per square mile certainly screams either incompetence or agenda to me.

I am with anyone who thinks intensive harvest permits are a bad idea in all but very limited and targeted situations. If anything they should increase the lottery to allow for higher antlerless harvest if needed. So I believe we do have common ground there.

On the total harvest goal numbers, I believe what you posted supports what I have said in terms of the weather being a factor that limits the state's ability to produce numbers that support the harvest of 200k or more deer year over year. In looking at long term harvest data it looks like 170k may be the average that can be expected with some years being higher and some lower.

[B. Amish]

saw a report that the preliminary final number for 2014 is 139,000.

[mntatonka]

I am with anyone who thinks intensive harvest permits are a bad idea in all but very limited and targeted situations. If anything they should increase the lottery to allow for higher antlerless harvest if needed. So I believe we do have common ground there.

On the total harvest goal numbers, I believe what you posted supports what I have said in terms of the weather being a factor that limits the state's ability to produce numbers that support the harvest of 200k or more deer year over year. In looking at long term harvest data it looks like 170k may be the average that can be expected with some years being higher and some lower.

I don't agree with the push for an audit (for various reasons), but I'd be more inclined to believe the average should be at about 200k, with a +/-20,000 variance. That seems to be a fairly happy medium for everyone, and we'll get there in the next couple years at the current harvest rates.

It also appears to me that there's certain areas of the state that need a push to have the wildlife managers removed/replaced/reeducated.

[SmellEsox]

I am with anyone who thinks intensive harvest permits are a bad idea in all but very limited and targeted situations. If anything they should increase the lottery to allow for higher antlerless harvest if needed. So I believe we do have common ground there.

On the total harvest goal numbers, I believe what you posted supports what I have said in terms of the weather being a factor that limits the state's ability to produce numbers that support the harvest of 200k or more deer year over year. In looking at long term harvest data it looks like 170k may be the average that can be expected with some years being higher and some lower.

I totally agree with you on your antlerless permit strategy. That would be a step in the right direction. And I can't really even argue with your 170 k figure, especially if our climate is getting colder (Although DNR would argue with you there also. I think they said that we would have Kansas' climate eventually). Personally I think over 200k is sustainable most years and we will have occasional winters that drop us below. I think 130-140k harvests are avoidable with proper management.

[PurpleFloyd]

I totally agree with you on your antlerless permit strategy. That would be a step in the right direction. And I can't really even argue with your 170 k figure, especially if our climate is getting colder (Although DNR would argue with you there also. I think they said that we would have Kansas' climate eventually). Personally I think over 200k is sustainable most years and we will have occasional winters that drop us below. I think 130-140k harvests are avoidable with proper management.

I am certainly not opposed to a higher harvest rate per year, but don't see at this point how we get there. I suppose more restrictive doe harvest might do something to that effect but I would like to see how that proposal would play out.

The reason I say that is if you look at the harvest history of the state, there are only a few years over the last 40 where it happened and it took some very favorable weather years to get there and since then as the weather turned to more normal patterns the herd and harvest have both declined. This decline has been pretty consistent and from what I can see doesn't follow a pattern statewide of anything harvest related.

I do believe the vast majority of changes have occurred north of I94 and for the most part the southern third of the state has not seen declines in numbers of deer. The harvest has gone down due to fewer permits issued and in my area there has been a pretty drastic drop in the number of permits offered.

You raise great and valid points.

[SmellEsox]

I am certainly not opposed to a higher harvest rate per year, but don't see at this point how we get there. I suppose more restrictive doe harvest might do something to that effect but I would like to see how that proposal would play out.

The reason I say that is if you look at the harvest history of the state, there are only a few years over the last 40 where it happened and it took some very favorable weather years to get there and since then as the weather turned to more normal patterns the herd and harvest have both declined. This decline has been pretty consistent and from what I can see doesn't follow a pattern statewide of anything harvest related.

I do believe the vast majority of changes have occurred north of I94 and for the most part the southern third of the state has not seen declines in numbers of deer. The harvest has gone down due to fewer permits issued and in my area there has been a pretty drastic drop in the number of permits offered.

You raise great and valid points.

This is where we differ PF. I think the herd was in definite decline before the tough winters hit and it was harvest of antlerless deer that caused it. Had we not reduced the population through the 2000s, I don't think our harvest would be where we are at today. Do you think it would? This is just my opinion so I have no leg to stand on really. Just my gut feeling.

[PurpleFloyd]

I am certainly not opposed to a higher harvest rate per year, but don't see at this point how we get there. I suppose more restrictive doe harvest might do something to that effect but I would like to see how that proposal would play out.

The reason I say that is if you look at the harvest history of the state, there are only a few years over the last 40 where it happened and it took some very favorable weather years to get there and since then as the weather turned to more normal patterns the herd and harvest have both declined. This decline has been pretty consistent and from what I can see doesn't follow a pattern statewide of anything harvest related.

I do believe the vast majority of changes have occurred north of I94 and for the most part the southern third of the state has not seen declines in numbers of deer. The harvest has gone down due to fewer permits issued and in my area there has been a pretty drastic drop in the number of permits offered.

You raise great and valid points.

[O.T.C.]

Narrowing this down to specific herds of deer in specific wintering locations...... 2 areas no longer, now in year 6 have a deer in them wintering. The third area has some for sure as well as fresh packs of wolves that never were there unless you're talking Charles Ingalls years. How will that recover ? They're hunting deer right now, relatives are afraid to even feed them anymore, to put the deer in a specific off the road area, how is that area going to come back if the wolves are now left to multiply to whatever sizes they do ? Talking farmland region. There's an early antlerless hunt going on right now where that never was a concern.

[sticknstring]

I consolidated the two charts into one for simplicity and added an average line. I agree with the "sweetspot" harvest being between 200-220k annually. We can hope anyways.

[LandDr]

Very nice chart! The male species does well with pictures.

I don't have the steal trap memory that my wife does, but it appears to cycle with bad winters. DNR regs probably added the extra variable the past few years as well.

If you are going to go toe to toe with the DNR on your harvest recommendations, I highly recommend you put pressure on their habitat design philosophies as well. If you want a stable "sweet spot", you better develop the cover and food to withstand the weather variables...otherwise I expect it will still cycle. In the forest region, DNR forecters need to not just think about how much timber they will produce and how to "restore" the woodlands...but also how to develop thermal cover and food. In the prairie and transition zone, DNR shouldn't just be focused on "prairie restoration" and needs to develop the thermal cover and food. I see absolutely none...nothing...nada..zilch...zippo thermal cover and food being developed. It is very sad to see because the best opportunity is when the property is first being planted...not 5 or 10 or never down the road when it takes an act of God to get them to change something.

I agree 100% on getting your sweet spot, but when you are toe to toe, don't forget to lay it on them on the lack of thermal cover and food.

[delcecchi]

Looking at that chart and dredging my memory for winter severity, I think your 200k could be doable so long as winters aren't very severe.

Someone who was more ambitious than I am could post a corresponding graph of WSI, or heating degree days and I bet there would be pretty good correlation.

Just speculation.

http://climate.umn.edu/text/historical/mspheatdd.txt

is data for twin cities. To my eyes it looks like winters since 1995-6 have tended to be on the mild side, until the last two.