Expected worst Deer harvest in 20 years!

[Siwulat]

The DNR has posted on their web-page their need for volunteers during their upcoming discussions on deer management in Minnesota. Perhaps individuals from this thread should take this opportunity to air their grievances in the proper environment; I highly doubt our elected officials will be reading this forum post any time soon.

[BobT]

Hey all, a little late to your party, but, I'll chirp in here. Ok. So I hunted last weekend (Sat,Sun,Mon,Tues) in zone 197 on north shore of Leech. I have several nice shooters on camera from this past summer / fall that are targets and 2 nice bucks on the wall from that very spot/trail, and have hunted there for pas 8 years since I left the southern farming areas I grew up in. In those 8 years I've shot 0 does,5 bucks with the last 2 going on the wall and the one year between those two - I had a 70yd shot at a 150 inch plus bruiser but, too thick of brush and a 30-06 round being deflected settled that encounter.

Anyway, last weekend, I sat 11 hours on Sat, 11 on Sun, 10 on Monday and another 5.5 on Tues before driving the 4.25 hours back home. I saw a grand total of 0 deer. But, in full disclosure; I have an understanding of what could happen up there and the reality of it is this -the population in Northern Mn isn't and never has been as dense as the whitetail population in southern Mn let alone Iowa,southern Wisconsin,etc. BUT, the year class dynamics are different and thus need mentioning. Basically I see it as - If I want quality instead of quantity in most of Mn, I likely need to go to a place where a buck has a shot at attaining age 4-5 plus. South central Mn farmland crop fields, drainage ditches,and small groves - is not that place.(not that it doesn't happen / just the odds is what I'm talking about). Some southern Mn river bottom land is different as those areas offer large uninterrupted expanses of cover and sanctuary. For the most part - The forests of northern Mn are an area for a shot at very mature bucks simply based on the lack of accessibility to the masses and the fact there is simply less pressure per hunt able acre of land. But again, winters are more harsh,snow is deeper and lasts longer, wolves and other predators more plentiful, and food not as. I am a 13 year HS Biology teacher and I fully understand population dynamics and the many variables that are being discussed and argued on this thread. A few things to add to the discussion; 2 back to back very severe long, cold, winters with deep snow that lasted well into the spring in the North woods. For what it's worth, Wolves are and have always been in the picture. Long before a man lived on this continent. Heck, our ancestral hunter gatherers likely learned many things about hunting from the wolf. The wolf is part of the equation but is really more like a scape goat in reality. The problems are people pressure and really - primarily climate. Wolves are much better adapt at running through deep snow than whitetails - so their success rate of their hunts likely improved by quite a bit over the past 26 ish months. Higher success, more pups, more pups, more demand for meat - that coupled with less food availability for the deer, and hungry bears coming out of hibernation in the spring right at fawning time, and we get what we are seeing today. There are lower numbers, there will be lower numbers again next year as this winter is shaping up to be bad. We are the wildcard as you can count on the wolf doing what the wolf does, the bear doing what the bear does, and the weather being the weather. If you want to see a change in the world - be that change. If lack of numbers is a big deal to you, simply stop shooting deer for a couple years or be aware that you may not see many due to the state of current circumstances. I will continue to hunt the North woods because I love peace, the lack of pressure, the total remoteness, as well as the potential. To sum it up - I'm going for the Home run up there and when you go for home runs you increase the chances that you strike out. I know that going in so - no biggy. this year - "literally".

[PurpleFloyd]

Total falsehood. QDM would and can work on any property. Public or private. It all is dependent on what the users (hunters) want. I've never owned a "large" tract of land, but have seen what QDM can do...even on small properties.

There'd be no reason to limit the number of hunters, only what those hunters are able to kill.

First, your point is falsehood because in order for it to work , all public land hunters would have to buy into QDM and that isn't happening.then there is the food plots and habitat etc.

Secondly, your property reinforces my point because you put all of that time and effort into it and still don't have any deer on it. If you put that much effort into habitat and are still not having any deer on the property you control, then public land doesn't stand a chance.

[BuckSutherland]

Dont believe that Smith has ever said anything about not having any deer on his property. I believe he has said he believes it can handle more deer than it has and that he is being more selective in what he harvest. Not all of us are "brown its down." Not all of us consider killing an animal successful hunting. Not all of us bought 5 extra tags, and some of us never even bought an extra tag.

[CaptainMusky]

Dont believe that Smith has ever said anything about not having any deer on his property. I believe he has said he believes it can handle more deer than it has and that he is being more selective in what he harvest. Not all of us are "brown its down." Not all of us consider killing an animal successful hunting. Not all of us bought 5 extra tags, and some of us never even bought an extra tag.

exactly there a few people who are conservation minded and not meat hogs but just because the dnr allowed it some think that's what needed to be harvested. Where is the onus on the hunter? Why cast the blame at the dnr?

[smsmith]

The DNR has posted on their web-page their need for volunteers during their upcoming discussions on deer management in Minnesota. Perhaps individuals from this thread should take this opportunity to air their grievances in the proper environment; I highly doubt our elected officials will be reading this forum post any time soon.

Thanks for posting that. I applied to be on one of the stakeholder teams several weeks ago. Put up or shut up time

[BuckSutherland]

I get what you are saying Captain. The problem is so many guy cant restrain themselves. If the limit is five then they will sit there until they get five. But, if the DNR would have put the limit at two most would have followed the rules and only took two. I would venture to say that well over 90% of guys will operate within the rules. They use the rules to justify the take.

Same goes for the fishing in this state. How many guys kept 100 perch of Winni back in the day and destroyed it from what it once was?? Or how about the way we let people raid the spawning bed for panfish??

I have tried to change the mind of people that I hunt with to NO AVAIL. But, I can guarantee 100% that they operate within whatever rules the DNR puts in place. That little $100 ticket or loss of privileges for a year has a lot of power. But if the catch a fish or see a deer and its legal to take it they will because they dont want the neighbor or someone else to catch or shoot it. Way too many selfish people, but they will follow the rules.

[smsmith]

First, your point is falsehood because in order for it to work , all public land hunters would have to buy into QDM and that isn't happening.then there is the food plots and habitat etc.

Secondly, your property reinforces my point because you put all of that time and effort into it and still don't have any deer on it. If you put that much effort into habitat and are still not having any deer on the property you control, then public land doesn't stand a chance.

Probably, but if QDM was the management style that our DNR decided to use, it wouldn't matter whether all hunters agreed with it or not...the regs would have to be followed. Just like they are now.

Secondly...you don't know my property at all. I don't believe I've ever made the statement "I have no deer on my land". I probably have stated something along the lines of "my property can handle a higher dpsm" or "my property would improve if the DNR managed the herd more appropriately". Generally, I don't talk about "my" property...I talk about the center portion of the state of MN. I'm fortunate enough to be a landowner, and as such I can improve the habitat on my place. That however does nothing for the public land hunter. The public land hunter depends entirely on the MN DNR and other public land hunters for the quality of their hunt.

[Don Brinkman]

I am not sure about the other areas of the state but the Forest Lake area has an abundance of deer right now and I have actually seen more deer on stand this year in the areas I hunt then in previous years. I know there are areas of the state where the population is way down so that may affect the overall harvest but with the cold weather for opener I think there are going to be a lot of tags filled this year. Harvest total will be down due to lack of extra permits but I still think it will be a decent harvest figure. Numbers are fine in this neck of the woods. Can't always believe what the media says right

Tunrevir~

I live in forest lake and there is not an abundance of deer in the area, and even if there was forest lake is part of the 7 county metro area, and the amount of geese, ducks or deer doesn't really reflect what's going on outside of It.

[Don Brinkman]

Hey all, a little late to your party, but, I'll chirp in here. Ok. So I hunted last weekend (Sat,Sun,Mon,Tues) in zone 197 on north shore of Leech. I have several nice shooters on camera from this past summer / fall that are targets and 2 nice bucks on the wall from that very spot/trail, and have hunted there for pas 8 years since I left the southern farming areas I grew up in. In those 8 years I've shot 0 does,5 bucks with the last 2 going on the wall and the one year between those two - I had a 70yd shot at a 150 inch plus bruiser but, too thick of brush and a 30-06 round being deflected settled that encounter.

Anyway, last weekend, I sat 11 hours on Sat, 11 on Sun, 10 on Monday and another 5.5 on Tues before driving the 4.25 hours back home. I saw a grand total of 0 deer. But, in full disclosure; I have an understanding of what could happen up there and the reality of it is this -the population in Northern Mn isn't and never has been as dense as the whitetail population in southern Mn let alone Iowa,southern Wisconsin,etc. BUT, the year class dynamics are different and thus need mentioning. Basically I see it as - If I want quality instead of quantity in most of Mn, I likely need to go to a place where a buck has a shot at attaining age 4-5 plus. South central Mn farmland crop fields, drainage ditches,and small groves - is not that place.(not that it doesn't happen / just the odds is what I'm talking about). Some southern Mn river bottom land is different as those areas offer large uninterrupted expanses of cover and sanctuary. For the most part - The forests of northern Mn are an area for a shot at very mature bucks simply based on the lack of accessibility to the masses and the fact there is simply less pressure per hunt able acre of land. But again, winters are more harsh,snow is deeper and lasts longer, wolves and other predators more plentiful, and food not as. I am a 13 year HS Biology teacher and I fully understand population dynamics and the many variables that are being discussed and argued on this thread. A few things to add to the discussion; 2 back to back very severe long, cold, winters with deep snow that lasted well into the spring in the North woods. For what it's worth, Wolves are and have always been in the picture. Long before a man lived on this continent. Heck, our ancestral hunter gatherers likely learned many things about hunting from the wolf. The wolf is part of the equation but is really more like a scape goat in reality. The problems are people pressure and really - primarily climate. Wolves are much better adapt at running through deep snow than whitetails - so their success rate of their hunts likely improved by quite a bit over the past 26 ish months. Higher success, more pups, more pups, more demand for meat - that coupled with less food availability for the deer, and hungry bears coming out of hibernation in the spring right at fawning time, and we get what we are seeing today. There are lower numbers, there will be lower numbers again next year as this winter is shaping up to be bad. We are the wildcard as you can count on the wolf doing what the wolf does, the bear doing what the bear does, and the weather being the weather. If you want to see a change in the world - be that change. If lack of numbers is a big deal to you, simply stop shooting deer for a couple years or be aware that you may not see many due to the state of current circumstances. I will continue to hunt the North woods because I love peace, the lack of pressure, the total remoteness, as well as the potential. To sum it up - I'm going for the Home run up there and when you go for home runs you increase the chances that you strike out. I know that going in so - no biggy. this year - "literally".

If you really think that is the solution then you are part of the problem, The deer herd hasn't died off because wolves can walk on top of deep snow, "because they can't" or because it has been cold and snowy, " which they are more then capable of surviving and used to be the norm" the Deer herd has been killed off because it's being ran by foolish biologist at the DNR, who publicly stated years ago, that they wanted to diminish the overall state herd by 25% well they succeeded.

[smsmith]

If you really think that is the solution then you are part of the problem, The deer herd hasn't died off because wolves can walk on top of deep snow, "because they can't" or because it has been cold and snowy, " which they are more then capable of surviving and used to be the norm" the Deer herd has been killed off because it's being ran by foolish biologist at the DNR, who publicly stated years ago, that they wanted to diminish the overall state herd by 25% well they succeeded.

They succeeded times 2 I believe...

[CANOPY SAM]

In response to Don's statement above, which seems to be a prevalent opinion here on FM, and on other forums, I would ask this. First please know that I don't know the answer to this question myself...at least in terms of Wisconsin.

If the harsh winters, and wolf population increase are of no consequence to the low deer numbers we're now seeing, and our alleged incompetent land managers in the state of Minnesota are the only reason our deer herd is suffering so badly, then how can you explain the gross reductions in deer herds to both the states east and west of us as well? Or at least in North Dakota?

Are the game and fish managers in Wisconsin and North Dakota all so miserably bad at their jobs that they are all causing a major big game reduction thru poor management practices in all our neighboring states as well? Are they all "in" on a secret agenda to systematically take away one of our prized natural resources?

The truth is, what "Fever" says above is exactly correct. There may have been a few poor decisions in regard to previous year's particular harvest levels in particular areas, but there is absolutely no question that the overall decline in our deer herd, and neighboring state's deer herds, are the result of a COMBINATION of factors, many of which are completely outside of the DNR's, and Game and Fish Dept's control.

The "let's find a scapegoat" witch hunt mentality has got to stop.

It's so easy to hide in the shadows and take cheap shots at those that have the courage and desire to lead, and make positive change. It's cowardly, and does absolutely nothing to improve our situation.

Please, do us ALL a favor. Keep the negativity, blame and shame stuff to yourselves. For those of us that can actually see the forest for the trees, your constant negative blaming is falling on deaf ears.

I love the earlier statements on this page. Be a part of the solution, or please keep your unproductive comments to yourselves.

[jay83196]

I agree with some of what you said canopy, however from a person in an area that was intensive harvest for years it's hard not to see fault and have frustration in the poor management in the area....and aren't forums about putting out opinions and discussions? Or is it only ok to have one if you or others agree with them! Everybody is entitled to their opinion, don't like it, buy a magazine and read that!

[smsmith]

I didn't realize you were the decider on what people can or cannot post. If everybody agrees on everything here, it would be a downright boring place to visit. If you don't like the threads dealing with dissatisfaction on our deer herd, the solution is pretty easy....don't click on them or read them. Problem solved. You're welcome

[FISHINGURU]

Albert Einstein : When all think alike, no one thinks very much.

[BuckSutherland]

there is absolutely no question that the overall decline in our deer herd, and neighboring state's deer herds, are the result of a COMBINATION of factors, many of which are completely outside of the DNR's, and Game and Fish Dept's control.

What a joke and a pantload of garbage. There are basically 4 ways a deer can die.

1. Humans and their weapons (guns, bows, cars)

2. Predators (wolves, bears, coyotes, dogs, big cats)

3. Weather (and usually it needs to be extended periods of horrible weather)

4. Disease

Pretty sure the DNR has control over the humans and the predators and says what can and can not be shot. Weather they have absolutely ZERO control and disease in the grand scheme of things is minimal. They might not be able to control the weather, but they sure could have clamped down on harvest, this year especially and they could open up more opportunity to harvest some of these predators. Did they not look at their winter severity index when it was over 180 by last March?? I, along with many others critical of the DNR could have went without a season this year. Its not about me, my tag, or meat in the freezer. I dont need to kill the dam things to enjoy them. I dont know why the hell its so hard for some of you to understand that.

[rockman]

Then don't buy a license if you could have went without a deer season this year. Why is that so hard for YOU to understand? Obviously nothing has changed here at Silly Town II in recent times. The same hypocritical bunch of nonsense, by the usual clowns trying to impose their view on others.

[smsmith]

A couple facts:

1. Winter of '12/'13 was quite snowy and spring '13 didn't arrive until towards the end of the first week of May here in central MN.

2. The DNR's response to this ^^ was INCREASING the number of Managed and Intensive units fall of '13.

3. Commissioner Landwehr informed his staff he wanted a more conservative season structure in '13...but some Area managers and folks in St. Paul ignored what the Commish instructed.

Those 3 facts alone are enough for me to continue to be a DNR detractor and to voice my displeasure with DNR deer management in this state.

[CaptainMusky]

A couple facts:

1. Winter of '12/'13 was quite snowy and spring '13 didn't arrive until towards the end of the first week of May here in central MN.

2. The DNR's response to this ^^ was INCREASING the number of Managed and Intensive units fall of '13.

.

I'm not calling you a liar but provide the stats to back this up as it is certainly not what I observed in the areas I hunt. All areas went from intensive to managed within 50 miles of where I hunt.

[Red Miller]

I can attest to fact No. 1. I recall floating around on Lake Mille Lacs bouncing off the ice cubes during fishing opener 2013. And in the first week in Dec. 2012, we got dumped with snow and it stayed until the first week in May. That was the winter before last. And last winter was almost the same except that there was more snow and one heck of a lot colder. It killed several of my landscape shrubs. The last two years in 247 we were hunters choice. We went lottery this year.

In my opinion, the last two winters along with the predators killed one heck of a lot of deer. A (no season) idea is the last thing the DNR wants. That $15M+ in revenue down the tubes, not a chance! And to take that one step further, any idea that alienates "average joe" hunters or their kids will go in the same garbage can.

[BuckSutherland]

Then don't buy a license if you could have went without a deer season this year. Why is that so hard for YOU to understand? Obviously nothing has changed here at Silly Town II in recent times. The same hypocritical bunch of nonsense, by the usual clowns trying to impose their view on others.

And what harm does buying the license do other than lightening my wallet?? Maybe I was going to hunt another part of the state(and I did), maybe I was gonna shoot a wounded deer if he came by, maybe I would have filled my wolf tag, maybe I would have gotten that shot at a once in a life-time 12 pt. Just cause I bought the license and went out doesnt mean I am kill crazy. It was gonna take something very special or unique set of circumstances to pull the trigger for me to pull the trigger up in 172.

Some of us can see past our own selfish needs and have something larger than our own wants and desires in mind. I like to think my decisions to do hard work today are gonna pay off for one of the kids hunting my property 5 years from now.

[Farmsfulltime]

DNR supporter here I think they do an excellent job given the (conditions ) they work under and it isn't going to get easier, A lot of differing views on deer management statewide and a thankless job as you are always wrong no matter the direction you take everything considered maybe some should be thankful we can find some professionals to take on the job .

[jay83196]

Conditions? What conditions nature? No different than neighboring states. A lot tighter rules in place than WI thats for sure and our results are worse....I don't doubt it's a difficult job but thats no exscuse, certainly no free pass like a lot of people like to extend them for some of the mistakes and poor results in both fishing and hunting management. Two examples Mille lacs and several hunting areas (156 being one example) years of poor regulations in place caused both to decline.

[smsmith]

I'm not calling you a liar but provide the stats to back this up as it is certainly not what I observed in the areas I hunt. All areas went from intensive to managed within 50 miles of where I hunt.

I don't have the links handy. Just Google up the 2012 and 2013 deer unit maps and count the number of Managed and Intensive units in each year.

[hockeybc69]

2012

40 - HC

23 - managed

6 - intensive

2013

32 - HC

30 - managed

8 - intensive

2012 the harvest was down from year prior. Winter of 2012-2013 was bad.

Lets increase the total possible kill for the 2013 season. And even with increased permit availability, we still shot less deer in 2013 than the year before.

Good sound management decisions.