New MN Deer Advocacy Group

[DaveT]

You gotta admit, at a certain point those bonus permits were a pretty good sales/marketing scheme and just free money for the DNR. How many do you think were bought and never filled?

Success rate seems more important than harvest totals. To me, consecutive years of a 30% success rate is definitely as signal things have gone south.

I agree, it may be as simple as the DNR being greedy and wanting that doe tag money. It seems like a poor strategy for managing your most profitable resource. We need new blood at the top.

If my kids have a couple more years of not seeing deer they will probably quit deer hunting (at least in MN). That's 3 hunters times potentially 60 years of licenses multiplied by every young hunter in the state who thinks deer hunting should include occasionally seeing and shooting a deer.

[Getanet]

The DNR doesn't have a clue what the real numbers are. The DNR doesn't care what the real numbers are.

[smsmith]

If my kids have a couple more years of not seeing deer they will probably quit deer hunting (at least in MN). That's 3 hunters times potentially 60 years of licenses multiplied by every young hunter in the state who thinks deer hunting should include occasionally seeing and shooting a deer.

That's significant, especially when you consider you are far from the only one looking at doing the same thing.

Perhaps MN will start charging folks to bird watch, hike, snowshoe, x-country ski or participate in some other "non-gun" related activities on our WMAs to make up for the lost hunting license revenue.

[laker1]

Quoting total statewide harvest numbers to me mean very little and to the average hunter very little.

Harvest totals should be quoted by being the north forest area,southern Minnesota or like the 100's or 200 areas.

Harvest for like the north zone should stand on its own in Historical numbers.

You go pre-70's and much of southern Minnesota didn't even have hardly any deer and most of the harvest was from north of Little falls.

[DaveT]

How does Kansas determine the size or their herd? How many deer does the Kansas DNR claim they have?

How many tags doe Kansas hunters get?

Are harvest numbers increasing or decreasing in Kansas?

http://kdwpt.state.ks.us/Services/Research-Publications/Wildlife-Research-Surveys/Deer

This is the most recent report I can find. I can tell you that recently they started including a doe tag with your non resident tag in response to landowner/farmer complaints about non resident hunters not shooting does while trophy hunting. I would expect the results of that effort to be marginal as they limit the number of non resident hunters, presumably to preserve the quality of the hunt for residents.

From what I can tell they use hunter surveys, deer/car collisions and some grunt work to measure deer density.

I don't get nearly as involved in KS deer policy because I have very little to complain about, so forgive my ignorance. I would assume harvest has increased because they recently changed their laws to allow resident hunters to hunt more than one season. In the past a resident could only hunt archery, rifle, or muzzleloader. Party killing is not allowed and the locals I have talked to about it seem perplexed by the thought of shooting somebody elses deer.

I can tell you that according to the KDWPT we have 25-30 DPSM in our area. I would say it's more than that on our property as we have food plots, CRP, and better habitat. I have never heard the farmer who leases our cropland complain about deer damage. He complains about rain, drought, wind, just about everything, but deer don't seem to cost him much money at 25 or more DPSM. I can tell you that we had our farmer leave an acre of standing corn one winter and most of it was still on the stalk the following spring. The woods are full of acorns every spring, there is no browse line, and the deer seem quite healthy. This is an area that is 40% timber and 60% ag.

In our zone we can purchase one either sex tag and two antlerless tags. The deer densities in KS are comparable to what we used to have in MN 10 years ago, although there seem to be more bucks and more mature bucks. I believe this is a result of no party hunting, less hunters, gun season outside the rut, shorter seasons, and a better age structure of the herd. I could be wrong though because I don't have a degree in wildlife biology and I also didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Bottom line is I don't believe anybody who tells me that most of the habitat in MN can't support 20 DPSM without damaging the "ecosystem". I don't believe anybody who tells me 20 DPSM is unsustainable and will cause millions of dollars in crop damage.I don't believe anybody who tells me the deer herd is stable when car/deer collisions are down 50%, P&Y entries are down 50%, and my own experience tells me that I'm seeing less than half the deer I used to see.

[B. Amish]

do people really believe that 30 dpsm in Kansas is equivalent to 30 dpsm in mn?

or x dpsm in Pennsylvania is equivalent to x dpsm in mn?

[laker1]

You can't compare states equally,throw in Montana much of it has 3-5 deer per sq. mile,and most of us would love to go hunt there with its present population.

[smsmith]

You can't compare states equally,throw in Montana much of it has 3-5 deer per sq. mile,and most of us would love to go hunt there with its present population.

Fair enough. Would you also agree that research on forest regeneration and dpsm from one state cannot be compared to another state?

[PurpleFloyd]

Bottom line is I don't believe anybody who tells me that most of the habitat in MN can't support 20 DPSM without damaging the "ecosystem".

Define "Most".With the exception of a narrow band along the Minnesota river and the far eastern zone by the Mississippi valley I don't know of any meaningful areas that could hold 20-30 DPSM south of Hwy 212 and considering the average is closer to 2 than 20, I am very skeptical that what you are proposing is possible. Groves are being eliminated at an accelerated pace, wet ground is being system tiled, fence lines are being taken out and tree lines that were put in as wind breaks 20-30 years ago are being taken out to facilitate the bigger machinery that is becoming standard. Acres are being taken out of CRP and turned black for 5 months a year which gives no shelter, only temporary food and sporadic water. Even in the river valleys the woods are too thin to support 20 DPSM IMHO and are limited to more like 5-10 max.

There are about 87000 square miles in Minnesota. Multiply that by 20 and you get 1,740,000 deer to meet that goal which would be a significant increase in population no matter who's current population numbers you are using. That just doesn't seem possible.

[PurpleFloyd]

The talk about kids not wanting to hunt puzzles me. We have 6 kids under 18 in our party and every year they are all eager for the hunt to get here and start talking about it months in advance. It's about the only time of the year they are up before the alarm clock goes off at 4:30 and yet none of them ever mention expecting to see any number of deer, care about whether they take their own deer, their brother or sister take it or whether it has a rack or not. My son is the only one who has taken one worthy of putting on the wall and many here would turn up their nose to it I am sure because it's only a 10 pointer and doesn't have enough bells and whistles to meet the standard. Kids take their cues from their parents and I would imagine if all we did in our party is whine about this and that our kids would pick up on it too. If the kids need to have things go a certain way to be happy then more than likely they are not a good fit for hunting anyway long term. It is called hunting,not shooting ad success should be earned by working for it and never expected.

[SmellEsox]

The talk about kids not wanting to hunt puzzles me. We have 6 kids under 18 in our party and every year they are all eager for the hunt to get here and start talking about it months in advance. It's about the only time of the year they are up before the alarm clock goes off at 4:30 and yet none of them ever mention expecting to see any number of deer, care about whether they take their own deer, their brother or sister take it or whether it has a rack or not. My son is the only one who has taken one worthy of putting on the wall and many here would turn up their nose to it I am sure because it's only a 10 pointer and doesn't have enough bells and whistles to meet the standard. Kids take their cues from their parents and I would imagine if all we did in our party is whine about this and that our kids would pick up on it too. If the kids need to have things go a certain way to be happy then more than likely they are not a good fit for hunting anyway long term. It is called hunting,not shooting ad success should be earned by working for it and never expected.

I would bet that the kids in your hunting group typically see several deer per year or get excited by seeing deer your party shoots. You probably have pretty good hunting where you are at. Different world. What if your party only shot 1-2 deer over the last 2-3 seasons and your hunters rarely saw deer? I took my kid bowhunting last year I believe 6-8 times and at least that many times the year before. He never saw a deer this year and only saw deer on one sit the year before. I took him to the UP of MI and he saw 30+ a day. He still wants to go, but if I hadn't brought him to MI I'm not so sure. Eventually I think hunting only in MN he might lose interest. I sat 11 times in a row last season w/o seeing hair. I can deal with it cause it's in my blood, but it's hard to stay excited as a young kid when the creature you are pursuing seems mythological.

[DaveT]

do people really believe that 30 dpsm in Kansas is equivalent to 30 dpsm in mn?

or x dpsm in Pennsylvania is equivalent to x dpsm in mn?

I'm pretty sure 30 is the same amount in MN as it is everywhere else in the world. One more than 29. I'm also pretty sure a square mile is measured the same way in every state in the country. So yes I think 30 DPSM is the same amount of deer per square mile whether that square mile is located in KS, MN, PA, or Bangladesh.

Or was there a different question in there? Perhaps you were insinuating that MN can't support the same numbers of deer that most other states can and do?

[NWKR]

I would bet that the kids in your hunting group typically see several deer per year or get excited by seeing deer your party shoots. You probably have pretty good hunting where you are at. Different world. What if your party only shot 1-2 deer over the last 2-3 seasons and your hunters rarely saw deer? I took my kid bowhunting last year I believe 6-8 times and at least that many times the year before. He never saw a deer this year and only saw deer on one sit the year before. I took him to the UP of MI and he saw 30+ a day. He still wants to go, but if I hadn't brought him to MI I'm not so sure. Eventually I think hunting only in MN he might lose interest. I sat 11 times in a row last season w/o seeing hair. I can deal with it cause it's in my blood, but it's hard to stay excited as a young kid when the creature you are pursuing seems mythological.

Some people are stuck on the idea that their hunting is good so why are other people complaining.

The area I hunt finished with a winter severity last year of almost 200 points. I still saw deer on almost every sit, multiple does with fawns, and even saw a couple bucks but no good shots. On Nov 1 I saw 11 individual deer at once from one stand over 1.5 hours before sunset. Pretty successful season in my book. But we have a family farm that is many times larger than what most people are hunting. When I talk to friends and neighbors a few miles away that had poor hunting I know better than to say that they must be lazy.

Locally (within a mile or two of our farm) I think we will be back to 20+ pre-fawn in a few years if we have another mild winter next year. The whole permit area will probably still be <15. I would be surprised to see crop damage at home with less than 25 dpsm prefawn. I would prefer to see a DPSM goal range of around 18-20 prefawn for permit area 156. Funny how the local wildlife manager told me that he would not expect tree regeneration issues at 20 dpsm pre-fawn in our area. There would be over browsing in wintering areas in a winter like 2013-2014 but they those areas can come back quickly since they aren't growing on shallow topsoil like the north shore.

I don't think the guys in St Paul spend much time talking to the local wildlife managers or even the COs who are out in the areas daily.

[B. Amish]

I'm pretty sure 30 is the same amount in MN as it is everywhere else in the world. One more than 29. I'm also pretty sure a square mile is measured the same way in every state in the country. So yes I think 30 DPSM is the same amount of deer per square mile whether that square mile is located in KS, MN, PA, or Bangladesh.

Or was there a different question in there? Perhaps you were insinuating that MN can't support the same numbers of deer that most other states can and do?

is that question real or rhetorical? or did you really know the point I was making?

[DaveT]

is that question real or rhetorical? or did you really know the point I was making?

How many deer do you think this square mile of ground can support in MN?

[Jameson]

do people really believe that 30 dpsm in Kansas is equivalent to 30 dpsm in mn?

or x dpsm in Pennsylvania is equivalent to x dpsm in mn?

I kind of hope that first line is a typo, but it did jog my memory of something. Back in the day Lou C. told us and everyone that the actual number used for dpsm in the stakeholder process didn't mean much. We were to not take it at it's value, but just understand that it was to be lowered or raised 10, 25, or 50 percent. This was repeated recently by an email from Steve Merchant to Brooks.

By not taking the dpsm at it's numerical value it eliminates the possibility to compare one area to another. 15 dpsm in one area can't be compared to 20 dpsm in another area, because the 15 and 20 might not be accurate and all that should we should be concerned about is 10, 25, or 50 percent change.

But, numerical value is often used to compare things. I don't like putting numbers to antlers like Pope and Young or Boone and Crockett scores, but I get that the scores are used for better comparison.

But wait, our Deer Sheriff did use the difference between dpsm in areas to shoot down the stakeholder teams recommendation.:

Leslie comparing dpsm from one area to another: "... The recommendation would have resulted in a goal density range identical to PA 346 while the available habitat is not similarly comparable..."

Merchant, "...We are not asking the team members to make their decisions based upon the estimated population density. We are asking them to base their decisions on what their perceptions of the deer density is. This is an important point. We are not asking them to focus on a specific number. In other words we do not want team members to be biased by a modeled number because we know that the modeled number is not really the number of deer that they are experiencing or perceiving. If I say the number is 100 or 10, the real number of deer on the ground does not change. That is the same and that is why we want team members to not focus on a modeled number."

[mntatonka]

It should be based on square mile of winter habitat, which wouldn't include a percentage of fields (the amount that's usually tilled each year). That's the only way you could use a DPSM number and compare one square mile to another, or even one permit area to another.

[Getanet]

------------

Pennsylvania

Choose to ignore the Pennsylvania problem. What's at risk is the credibility of the DNR and their ability to manage the herd. If trust in the DNR vanishes, harvest will no longer be dictated by them, but by rogue bands of landowners in neighborhood coops and the absence of public land hunters who've quit.

This caught my eye the other day. Bureaucrat, are you saying neighborhood coops are a bad idea?

[B. Amish]

good grief.

what do deer need to survive? food.

what impacts food availability? growing season length.

is the growing season the same in international falls as cannon falls? no.

the constant comparisons of mn to Kansas, PA, or just about anywhere else are out of control.

comparisons of NW MN to SE MN to NE MN are also out of control.

[B. Amish]

How many deer do you think this square mile of ground can support in MN?

another one of the problems. taking what the dnr states as goals for zones and directly applying it to a specific property.

dnr will never be able to manage at the property level the way hunters expect them too. a lot of hunters have flat earth syndrome: the world starts and stops at their property lines.

[smsmith]

the constant comparisons of mn to Kansas, PA, or just about anywhere else are out of control.

comparisons of NW MN to SE MN to NE MN are also out of control.

Okay

Would comparing Superior, WI to Duluth, MN be "ok"?

Would comparing Spooner, WI to Little Falls, MN be "ok"?

Would comparing Minong, WI to Pierz, MN be "ok"?

Would comparing Hayward, WI to Milaca, MN be "ok"?

Similar comparisons can be made along our western border with SD and ND...are any of those acceptable? Length of growing season and habitat types are quite similar. Are those fair comparisons in YHO?

edit...oops, forgot about the comparison along our southern border with IA as well as our northern borders with Manitoba and Ontario.

[B. Amish]

Okay

Would comparing Superior, WI to Duluth, MN be "ok"?

Would comparing Spooner, WI to Little Falls, MN be "ok"?

Would comparing Minong, WI to Pierz, MN be "ok"?

Would comparing Hayward, WI to Milaca, MN be "ok"?

Similar comparisons can be made along our western border with SD and ND...are any of those acceptable? Length of growing season and habitat types are quite similar. Are those fair comparisons in YHO?

it would be a much better discussion.

[laker1]

I believe in most forested areas 30 deer/sq mile in good forested woods is and was very doable. The extensive 20 year study and still going on in the southern half of 172 for years had post fawn population in the 30-40's.

Yes also deer are part of the ecosystem and what they eat and do is natural so it should be accepted. Up to a point. Deer do not hurt newly cut aspen stands with its 1000,s of new stems. They do at times hurt pine regrowth.

Also northern Minnesota northern climate is about harsh as it comes in the lower 48,maybe throw in Upper Michigan. Most of Wisconsin is south of Brainerd.

[smsmith]

Also northern Minnesota northern climate is about harsh as it comes in the lower 48,maybe throw in Upper Michigan. Most of Wisconsin is south of Brainerd.

No argument there, but comparing locations with similar latitudes and habitats should at least be close to an "apples to apples" discussion. If you notice, I didn't include any comparison of WI areas north of Duluth .

I will say that this winter NE WI is experiencing a much more harsh winter than my area is...even though we're about even on latitude. Through in the lake effect snows many areas of northern WI get and I'd wager that their winters are on par with parts of NE MN most years (even though they are farther south)

As far as harshness of winter goes, I'd add areas of northern VT, northern NH, central and northern ME, areas of northern NY, northern ND and the higher elevations of some western states.

[O.T.C.]

We produce 1 billion more bushels of corn then Pennsylvania. I used to think corn was a great thing growing up as a kid for our deer but I'm not so sure anymore. Provides a hide out from August-October and then it's chisel plowed and frozen when the wildlife that winter here need it the most. It's too bad for MN deer that the small dairy farmers couldn't make ends meet cuz all those farms in my area were bought up by the big boys and they aint planting a mixture of alfalfa, oats,corn, and beans and actually back then I rarely saw soybeans of any kind. The perfect storm came together and that's a small part of it in my main areas. Now it's beans corn potatoes every year so pray for a few wet Octobers and not in potato years. The habitat loss with that is squeezing what deer we have into less acres of cover. Now back to wolves,winter,tags, bad foresight in management and all the technology making it easier on us to get them.