Expected worst Deer harvest in 20 years!

[delcecchi]

So you would be OK with the north shore becoming grass and brush? Sounds like that is a distinct possibility if something isn't done to turn around the trend. Reducing deer population in that area is something that could be part of that. Likewise deer population might be damaging the forest in other places as well.

I do know that in many places, including some near lake Vermilion, and in Rochester area, that if you want to grow something it better be behind an 8 foot fence or at least for white pines have bud caps on every year until they get up in size.

I posted the article since perhaps some haven't seen it, and to show that the DNR has to balance deer hunting with other interest groups.

[SmellEsox]

"We're approaching nine decades of deer over- browsing along parts of the North Shore, and the ecosystem has been permanently altered by it."

I find this (true) statement as no more than spin. The timber harvests of past, created the habitat suitable for the whitetail deer. Timber harvests continue till today. And it is the deer, that have permanently altered the ecosystem?

Lets wage war on an animal we continue to create habitat for, and yet blame them for eating what we plant.:-(

I really thought our wildlife section of the DNR's (excluding non-game dept) mission was the CONSERVATION wildlife. They can not succeed in bringing back the ecosystems of 150 years ago. There is no chance, and is a waste. Conserve what we have for the future.

This is spot on! Great post.

[NWKR]

So you would be OK with the north shore becoming grass and brush? Sounds like that is a distinct possibility if something isn't done to turn around the trend.

[NWKR]

Hunter and landowner survey results are posted under the resources tab for the areas with 2015 goal setting.

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/mammals/deer/mgmt.html

[SmellEsox]

So you would be OK with the north shore becoming grass and brush? Sounds like that is a distinct possibility if something isn't done to turn around the trend. Reducing deer population in that area is something that could be part of that. Likewise deer population might be damaging the forest in other places as well.

I do know that in many places, including some near lake Vermilion, and in Rochester area, that if you want to grow something it better be behind an 8 foot fence or at least for white pines have bud caps on every year until they get up in size.

I posted the article since perhaps some haven't seen it, and to show that the DNR has to balance deer hunting with other interest groups.

Do you really think it is going to become grass and brush? I highly doubt it. Spruce/balsam dominated maybe or other species that survive in the presence of deer. Do you remember what densities they were talking about that the deer had to get down to to make a difference? If I remember right it is less than 5 dpsm. Is that what we as hunters are going to be ok with so they can grow some white pine? I think we are down on the north shore to levels similar to that now. We should be seeing forest regeneration now right? I agree with the other posters that said we live on a man altered landscape that is conducive to deer. We may have to actively manage for white pine or other desirable species if we demand their/its presence on the landscape. And just a side note, I see white pine growing all over the place in central MN around Little Falls and we have much higher deer densities than on the north shore. I realize that it is much more productive down here and there are alternate food sources here, but white pines seem to do ok here. I also did a hunt over in the cenrtal UP of MI this year where deer densities are much higher than the north shore and there is very little ag. Guess what, there were young white pines growing. I think there is definitely some spin and fear mongering going on in this article.

[SmellEsox]

As far as the survey is concerned, I was kind of bothered by it really. I didn't receive the survey, but what if a hunter or landowner wanted the deer herd increased more than 50%? There was no option for 75% increase or even doubling the population. Why? In some areas I don't think it would be unreasonable. In fact, some areas are probably down more than 50% from the highs. It would take a 100% increase to bring them back to that level.

[laker1]

Bump

[smsmith]

I also did a hunt over in the cenrtal UP of MI this year where deer densities are much higher than the north shore and there is very little ag. Guess what, there were young white pines growing. I think there is definitely some spin and fear mongering going on in this article.

Take a drive through the central third of WI and see how white pine regeneration is "lacking"

2-5 times the number of deer there than here and the white pines are doing just fine. Heck, on my folks' old place in Juneau County, WI the white pines were thick...and regenerating every year. Sure, some lost their central leaders to winter browsing, but most did not. Those that lose their central leaders turn into more of a shrubby, thick tree...which is great for thermal cover.