Media Concerned About Minnesota Deer

[harvey lee]

I know in several states, when the deer herd is large, the insurance companies complain as too to many car deer claims, heard this from their DNR.

Now, farm crop damage, off course this is a issue and the DNR will and can cut the herd numbers due to crop damage from too many deer.

I have a cousin in Wisc that has had a lot of crop damage from so many deer, solution for him, they gave him 21 deer tags to have filled to reduce the herd to lessen his crop damage, so yes, it does happen and will continue too.

Few years back, I was hunting on the east side of Wisc and we stopped and talked to a farmer about hunting his land, he asked how many deer we wanted to shoot as he had close to 25 tags we could have if we would fill them all. Sure this reduces the herd.

Not that long ago Wisc started their T zone area's to reduce deer numbers, they said a lot had to do with car deer accident claims and crop damage.

I guess for anyone who believe that the wildlife agencies do not reduce deer numbers due to compplaints from accidents and crop damage need to listen to why some states are cutting where they are.

How about the metro zone in MN, shoot what 5 does to reduce the herd so there are less deer damage complaint's.

When people or companies complain about deer damage, the deer come out on the short end of the stick.

[smsmith]

I know in several states, when the deer herd is large, the insurance companies complain as too to many car deer claims, heard this from their DNR.

Now, farm crop damage, off course this is a issue and the DNR will and can cut the herd numbers due to crop damage from too many deer.

I have a cousin in Wisc that has had a lot of crop damage from so many deer, solution for him, they gave him 21 deer tags to have filled to reduce the herd to lessen his crop damage, so yes, it does happen and will continue too.

Few years back, I was hunting on the east side of Wisc and we stopped and talked to a farmer about hunting his land, he asked how many deer we wanted to shoot as he had close to 25 tags we could have if we would fill them all. Sure this reduces the herd.

Not that long ago Wisc started their T zone area's to reduce deer numbers, they said a lot had to do with car deer accident claims and crop damage.

I guess for anyone who believe that the wildlife agencies do not reduce deer numbers due to compplaints from accidents and crop damage need to listen to why some states are cutting where they are.

How about the metro zone in MN, shoot what 5 does to reduce the herd so there are less deer damage complaint's.

When people or companies complain about deer damage, the deer come out on the short end of the stick.

Good post...I'd like to add that in WI for those farmers to get those tags that a DNR employee had to come out, assess the damage, determine how many tags to issue...and issue them. That is a good, site based solution.

WI also tracks the dollar amount of crop depredation through their DNR. MN DNR relies on farmers' estimates for damage...no DNR employee ever verifies the amount claimed.

I'm all for measured, quantified, verified tracking of crop depredation and car/deer collisions. By actually tracking those things using VERIFIABLE data, we can come up with measurable tools to track the herd. Currently, I think the MN DNR throws a dart at a dartboard entirely composed of "about a million" and that's how we get our herd estimate. Let's start using some quantifiable, measurable data.

[DaveT]

Yes it is and I wouldn't want to increase that number one dollar

How much would you let us decrease that number?

Let's start at 20 billion.

You know you can always get a 2nd job down at the McDonalds to help make ends meet, you should have about 4 months out of every year when there's nothing to do but stare at snow covered fields and another 2 months of watching them grow, that's at least 6 months of opportunity to EARN a paycheck instead of watching Dr Phil and cashing those welfare checks.

[smsmith]

Fft has previously confirmed that he is among the 30 percent of farmers in MN who do NOT take subsidies

Of course...that means 70 percent of farmers in MN do indeed take them...but none of us taxpayers are helping farmers out at all ...those guys are feeding our deer year round for free...well except for the 6-8 months a year when they aren't anyway. Those plowed and/or snow covered fields aren't exactly "deer magnets"

I should get some subsidies for all the browse damage on my place, and all the acorns the critters eat before I can gather them, and all the apples they "steal" from me, and all that tonnage of clover/chicory/small burnett they prevent me from baling and selling....and heck, that's pretty much year round

[B. Amish]

what's Wisconsin gonna do? I'm really concerned. I mean they had the best deer herd in the country but the just had their worst season in 32 years!!! what was the dnr thinking? how did they let this happen?

i mean just days before the season, we were all here talking about how mn was gonna have the worst season in 20 years and how great Wisconsin is. but, they had the worst season in 32 years!!!

[smsmith]

A preliminary answer to your question. My understanding is that some of the counties changed their vote last night from maintain to increase, but that's yet to be verified factually.

Note that the Southern Farmland zone contains much of what used to be considered the CWD zone. Those units never got close to the goal of 8-10 dpsm that the WI DNR wanted to achieve...and almost all of them voted to sustain current numbers. My unit is managed at 10 dpsm...what the WI DNR wanted the old CWD zone to be managed at. Makes a lot of sense...I'm managed at what is considered a ridiculously low density in response to the worst deer disease we have....and there is no CWD in MN.

[creepworm]

I want to make sure I have this right.

One state just had the worst deer harvest in 32 years. Over half of the state is planning on maintaining or even decreasing the deer herd from the population that caused the lowest deer harvest in 32 years.

One state substantially decreased antlerless tags trying to increase the deer herd after the lowest harvest in 20 years. They are trying to increase populations basically across the state, except for a very few areas.

And you are trying to champion the state that is going to maintain the herd at a level that caused the lowest harvest in 32 years and is planning to maintain the herd at that level as the gold standard to which MN deer management should strive to be? You literally can not make this up.

[smsmith]

I'm not "championing" anything creepworm...I was answering the question posed by B.Amish

[Farmsfulltime]

I would be happy if all they took was the acorns, apples, and browse ,

Question then high deer tags in some high deer areas , confirmed damage ect as was mentioned in Wisconsin when the farmer and friends manages to take those 25 deer what about the qdma er next door you just smoked the deer hes been grooming for two years for (his ) wall .

[smsmith]

Question then high deer tags in some high deer areas , confirmed damage ect as was mentioned in Wisconsin when the farmer and friends manages to take those 25 deer what about the qdma er next door you just smoked the deer hes been grooming for two years for (his ) wall .

I'm sure that creates some ill will between neighbors. However, if in an area like parts of Shawano or Waupaca counties...that QDM'er may be thankful that deer were removed from neighboring properties. When faced with 100 dpsm and a B:D ratio of 1:5 a QDM'er would be more than happy to have a bunch of does removed. Most ag tags aren't getting filled with with 2.5+ year old bucks, but I imagine there's a few.

[creepworm]

I'm not "championing" anything creepworm...I was answering the question posed by B.Amish

Oh good grief.

You have gone from skating around the truth to just flat out lying now.

I can find dozens of posts by you mentioning WI deer management and you use it as an example for how MN should manage their deer herd. DOZENS.

[delcecchi]

and there is no CWD in MN.

It was detected in 2011 in a hunter harvested wild deer. They haven't found another case but I think saying there is none is perhaps a little optimistic.

[smsmith]

It was detected in 2011 in a hunter harvested wild deer. They haven't found another case but I think saying there is none is perhaps a little optimistic.

Perhaps, but that's what the MN DNR tells us. Zero cases of CWD detected in wild deer in MN. They just did another round of testing this year in SE MN and the same results...zero cases.

[smsmith]

Oh good grief.

You have gone from skating around the truth to just flat out lying now.

I can find dozens of posts by you mentioning WI deer management and you use it as an example for how MN should manage their deer herd. DOZENS.

That's a separate issue isn't it creepworm? I posted the above map in answer to B. Amish's question "what is WI going to do now?"

I won't dispute the fact that I find WI's deer management superior to MN's. This year they took 190K plus deer and that was a 30 year low. We took 170K last year and will end up right around 140K this year...about what we took in '65 and '66. Their DNR responded with buck only in the northern third of the state. Here, at similar latitudes we still were shooting does in many units.

You and P.F. make light of the fact that WI DNR's underwent an audit and have now experienced their lowest kill. However, that low kill likely wouldn't have occurred without the audit. The audit recommended a drastic reduction in doe permits in northern WI. This was the first fall that any of the audit's recommendations were put in place. The CDAC map of recommendations I posted is a new outcome from the audit.

Whether WI's audit recommendations and changes will be successful or not is anyone's guess at this point. All I know is they're doing something besides the same old, same old.

[Farmsfulltime]

Its my understanding that quite a few antlerless were harvested in those bucks only units , with dnrs blessings as they set the rules and seasons in Wisconsin . Don't let anyone fool you the Wisconsin model has as many detractors as Minnesota the complaining will go on forever there too. Its going to be the same here , hold the meetings let the groups have their say and then do what they always planned as far as management

[smsmith]

Its my understanding that quite a few antlerless were harvested in those bucks only units , with dnrs blessings as they set the rules and seasons in Wisconsin . Don't let anyone fool you the Wisconsin model has as many detractors as Minnesota the complaining will go on forever there too. Its going to be the same here , hold the meetings let the groups have their say and then do what they always planned as far as management

You are absolutely correct. They probably have more detractors than MN does. The only antlerless harvested in the bucks only units (legally) were those taken by youth hunters (or they were shot by Grandpa and the kid tagged it) or by active duty military.

Hold the meetings, let the groups have their say...then do what the Farm Bureau paid to have done...right Fft?

[Farmsfulltime]

Theres a few chairs at the tables that's for sure , not a very transparent process . Politics by some definition are always at play everywhere .

On the antlerless in Wisconsin buck only areas , The dnr was fully aware of what was being set up with the youth tags and how the tags would be filled

[smsmith]

On the antlerless in Wisconsin buck only areas , The dnr was fully aware of what was being set up with the youth tags and how the tags would be filled

Agreed. I'm hearing some rumblings that next year the youth tag exemption may be removed, I imagine winter will have some bearing on whether that happens or not.

I need to correct my previous post. There were additional antlerless deer taken in the buck only units (besides youth and active duty military)...those were crop depredation tags.

[SmellEsox]

I would take WI's crappy worst season in 32 years over our awful season. I'm pretty sure their crappy season still contained significantly more deer than ours did. Their densities are higher even with how bad it is over there. In fact if we had "their" season here, it would probably have been one of our top seasons ever.

[Getanet]

In fact if we had "their" season here, it would probably have been one of our top seasons ever.

MN had a higher harvest from 2000 - 2011 than WI had this year. It's tough to compare total harvest between the two states, as WI has more hunters.

According to the article that started this thread, WI sold 608,711 licenses to kill 191,550 deer, for a 31% success rate.

MN sold around 450,000 licenses, and while final harvest tallies aren't in, I'll go with Ssmith expected total of around 140,000 for a 31% success rate.

MN typically has a hunter success rate in the low to mid 30% range. WI is usually in the 40-50% range.

While both states still have some hunting left, I would say WI had a worse year than they're accustomed to than we did.

[smsmith]

MN had a higher harvest from 2000 - 2011 than WI had this year. It's tough to compare total harvest between the two states, as WI has more hunters.

According to the article that started this thread, WI sold 608,711 licenses to kill 191,550 deer, for a 31% success rate.

MN sold around 450,000 licenses, and while final harvest tallies aren't in, I'll go with Ssmith expected total of around 140,000 for a 31% success rate.

MN typically has a hunter success rate in the low to mid 30% range. WI is usually in the 40-50% range.

While both states still have some hunting left, I would say WI had a worse year than they're accustomed to than we did.

To be accurate, we're going to have to compare total kill to total kill. The 140K I'm guessing is total kill (all weapons, all season) for MN. The 190K number that started this thread is for 9 day firearm season only in WI. I believe I had seen an archery total around 80K for WI up to the firearm season, but I'm not sure about that. Throw in some late season archery totals, late antlerless hunts, and muzzle loader season and WI will be coming in somewhere in the mid to upper 200K range I'd guess.

[Getanet]

That's a good point Ssmith. Still, it seems the important thing to compare is success rates, not simply overall totals, and by that measure WI hunters fell further from what they are accustomed to than we did.

[SmellEsox]

That's a good point Ssmith. Still, it seems the important thing to compare is success rates, not simply overall totals, and by that measure WI hunters fell further from what they are accustomed to than we did.

I'll take WI's deer population over ours any year. They have higher densities than we do and better age structure than we do.

[O.T.C.]

If both states would've allowed another 250 wolves to be taken we'd have spared 10,000 more deer, figuring how ever many are does with single or twin fawns..............Pummeled by tough Springs with a blossoming timberwolf population...........these wolves up north are pounding away at what little's left, and establishing new ranges in counties they haven't been in since Charles Ingalls covered the wagon. These quota's can't be filled so fast if there is an average number of them around. Deer recovery efforts would've moved ahead more quickly if wolf numbers were in balance like they were not soooo many years ago. The moose decline hurt deer numbers I believe.

[delcecchi]

The moose decline hurt deer numbers I believe.

Or maybe the lower deer numbers will help the moose population, since deer are carriers of brainworm which is hard on moose.