Expected worst Deer harvest in 20 years!

[PurpleFloyd]

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.

There have been a few bad ones sprinkled in there. I believe things were going well until about the winter of 2009 or so. We got a bad one that year that hammered the pheasant population hard and really knocked their numbers back. I know there were pictures from Minnesota, North and South Dakota that showed dead birds scattered in very large numbers and I know that was bad on the deer as well and the spring has not been kind many years since as well.

[delcecchi]

I was going to post the graph but can't figure out how to get it from excel to a jpg or equivilent image file.

[PurpleFloyd]

I was going to post the graph but can't figure out how to get it from excel to a jpg or equivilent image file.

Print it

Scan it

Save as a jpeg

Choose file

Add file

Done adding files

Post

[SmellEsox]

WSI data is available on DNR HSOforum. Most years in the 2000 were low to moderate. 2009 was moderate at the worst but may have been the most difficult winter in the 2000s. Despite that, the DNR model showed little change in pre-fawn deer density from 2009 to 2010, even up north. So the winter obviously wasn't thought to be too tough.

[sticknstring]

I was going to post the graph but can't figure out how to get it from excel to a jpg or equivilent image file.

Copy Excel chart (right click on border of chart)

Paste in Paint

Save as jpeg

[PurpleFloyd]

WSI data is available on DNR HSOforum. Most years in the 2000 were low to moderate. 2009 was moderate at the worst but may have been the most difficult winter in the 2000s. Despite that, the DNR model showed little change in pre-fawn deer density from 2009 to 2010, even up north. So the winter obviously wasn't thought to be too tough.

Then again some would say the DNR data is faulty at best and doesn't represent reality.

Dead wildlife doesn't lie.

[Bear55]

We just need a little more of that global warming to kick in, a couple mild winters in a row will kick start the herd.

[delcecchi]

learn something new every day. Didn't know about paint.

[delcecchi]

Thanks, Purple. The dots are the actual data for the twin cities.

I might take a look to see if they have Hibbing or something next.

[leechlake]

learned from an older guy years ago that in general for every 50 miles north you go the average temp is 2 degrees colder. Don't know how to extrapolate that in the heating days chart though but it is an excellent guide to compare the Mpls temps to points north.

[BobT]

I agree that winter severity will correlate but there's more to it than that. What determines winter severity? Lot's of snow, cold, longevity, late spring, etc.? The past couple years we've had some very wet spring weather which also creates some added difficulty to newborn mortality due to sickness.

[SmellEsox]

Then again some would say the DNR data is faulty at best and doesn't represent reality.

Dead wildlife doesn't lie.

They certainly don't stand!

Sorry, couldn't help myself. LOL.

[SmellEsox]

So how do you interpret that graph? The higher the point, the colder the year?????

[leechlake]

yes. I looked up how it's computed and my head spun off my body. Weather Underground basically started their explanation saying "you don't need to know but..."

[delcecchi]

So how do you interpret that graph? The higher the point, the colder the year?????

If you are talking about my graph, yes the more heating degree days the colder the winter. Basically it is how much below 65 degrees the temperature is each day, added up over the year. So if the temperature is zero all day that would be 65 degree days. If it was zero for a month that would be 65 times 30 days or 3750 degree days.

The average for the last 141 years is 7877 in the twin cities. The range has been from about 9000 to 6000 over the last 100 years or so.

[sticknstring]

Here's the WSI data that delcecchi provided overlayed on the chart I posted above. I started with 1989 to match the harvest data. I'm an Excel novice, so if someone wants to get creative or needs the data, I can email them.

[O.T.C.]

Always kinda wondered a little about we've had a bad winter lets say, but farmers left 420 acres of corn within the 3 sections that winter. Next is milder somewhat with everything tilled under, which is worse for em ?

[smsmith]

I'm no statistician....but I'm sure not seeing a correlation there. If there is a consistent correlation...I'd sure appreciate it if somebody pointed it out and explained it to me.

[creepworm]

I'm no statistician....but I'm sure not seeing a correlation there. If there is a consistent correlation...I'd sure appreciate it if somebody pointed it out and explained it to me.

I do not see a correlation either. However, this is very subjective data. It could be a cooler than average summer and an average winter and it would show on the graph as one of the spikes, even though no winter-kill or spring kill of fawns would have occurred. There are simply to many variables to try to put stock into the overall yearly temperature in the twin cities.

[delcecchi]

In the 90's I see a correlation. The degree data is for the winter ending that year. So a severe winter looks correlated to a low harvest.

In the 2000's, not so much correlation is obvious. The data is all available if anyone remembers enough of the math of statistics to see. I don't.

Perhaps the DNR changed the regs from year to year in the more recent years and obscured the correlation, or maybe wolves and bear were more of a factor.

Speculation on my part.

[smsmith]

Well..it wasn't the lowest harvest in 20 years...it was the lowest harvest in nearly 30 years. Just a bit over 139,000 according to Outdoor News. A harvest total similar to what was taken in the mid-60's.

[Jameson]

Flip Del's data upside down and maybe the graphs match up better, but so what?

.....

Worse harvest in 30 years, hope the DNR is prepared to have the same number of deer hunters as 30 years ago.

[SmellEsox]

Winters obviously effect deer further north than the central and southern parts of the state. It would be interesting to see WSI numbers and harvest trends in the 200 and 300 zones. I think reduced harvests after tough winters are highly skewed to northern zones and central and southern zones don't decline nearly as much. I would guess harvest patterns are far more of a factor in the cental and southern parts of the state.

[Bear55]

I'm no statistician....but I'm sure not seeing a correlation there. If there is a consistent correlation...I'd sure appreciate it if somebody pointed it out and explained it to me.

Take another look, pretty easy to see the bad winters and harvest rates line up in the 90's and right now. The steady drop after the peak years was an overharvest of doe's. You can also see the temp take a dive during the mild winters and peak hunting years of the early 2000's.

[Bear55]

Here is a simple illustration, red represents the warmer winters and higher population to follow, blue is of course cooler winters which have an immediate impact on the herd. Black is my opinion of the dnr pushing extra doe tags for too long which slammed right into some bad winters and leaves us in our current mess.