Kip: Top 5 Factors Causing Deer Population Declines

[Terrific_tom]

:eek: Sounds like you need a deer crossing sign like those on the interstate

Or people that drive sensible.

 

[Bucks&Ducks]

Here are the facts.
You are right in my wheelhouse...

2007 Stakeholders meetings(prior to the 2007 deer season), it was agreed to stabilize populations.
Somehow our manager(Don Schultz) kept us at an Intensive Harvest designation that fall and again in 2008.

This chart is simple to read.
We were Intensive Harvest in 2005 as a zone 4 hunting unit.
In 2006, we were changed to zone 2 and looky what happened.... Our harvest spiked up again.
The next year(2007) was comparable and we were again Intensive Harvest.

What happened in 2008? We were Intensive Harvest and we dropped.
And we dropped again, and again and again.
What happened. We were a Managed permit area each of the next 3 years and we kept plummeting.

Why?
Very simple.... You cant have more guys all hunting the same time frame and expect deer to live.

If there is an argument that weather and wolves might be the cause, I have news for you.

I spoke to Dino DeAngelo that is one of the top dogs in the Farmland region and he told me on a phone call that winter and wolves are not factored into population managment in permit area 240. He said 95% of deer die by lead poisoning.

In permit area 240, our problem is very simple. Deer cant survive with the pressure they have.

View attachment 5684

My point is the zone was intensive harvest in 2003-2005 and management before that according to the DNR page. So it would be expected to plummet even if it was not changed to zone 2. Did it play a role, sure. I just think there is a lot more to it and the intensive harvest played a much larger role.

 

[Bucks&Ducks]

I am talking about consistent differences between zone 1 and 2 in 11 total zones. Could be a coincidence, but I think its an extra week of rifle season.

My point is there are differences between these areas which is why they are in different zones in the first place. I am sure an extra week has an effect, I just wonder how much.

It would be nice to find an area that was lottery or HC that changed zones. Another thing is did you ever come across any data on what harvests were each day of the week, even if it was for the whole state?

 

[Bucks&Ducks]

Good question. I mean that I get pics of bucks from late September/mid-October through January that I don't get from spring through early-mid fall.

Same here. I usually don't have any bucks older than yearlings until late September or early October. I always thought it was bachelor groups breaking up and dispersing. Not 100% sure why they don't spend the summer months although I seem to remember reading that bucks like more open woods during the summer to stay cool. Although I am not sure if I believe that theory.

 

[bat man]

Another thing is did you ever come across any data on what harvests were each day of the week, even if it was for the whole state?

It is not tracked. Hunter effort is not tracked in MN.

But the DNR can report opening weekend success compared to prior years. But they dont track it.

Yet they report it.

But they have no data.

 

[strawhead]

This is the most mature buck we have had on our place in spring or summer in the last 4 or 5 years. This correlates with improved habitat and more food in food plots.. I strongly believe that when doe family group usage increased May through Sept. the mature buck usage declined. It may have something to do with increased work activity in the food plots, although I think less than the increased usage by doe family groups. I know others have stated this previously. We have millions of acres of northern forest for the mature bucks to find seclusion elsewhere. We have a somewhat different situation than many others.

 

[Bucks&Ducks]

It is not tracked. Hunter effort is not tracked in MN.

But the DNR can report opening weekend success compared to prior years. But they dont track it.

Yet they report it.

But they have no data.

Frustratring. Not sure why they are hiding that info. Data comes in on every registration.

 

[biglakeba$$]

My point is the zone was intensive harvest in 2003-2005 and management before that according to the DNR page. So it would be expected to plummet even if it was not changed to zone 2. Did it play a role, sure. I just think there is a lot more to it and the intensive harvest played a much larger role.

Then why from 2001 to 2006 were harvest levels fairly flat?
Fast forward to 2007 and 2008 and things tanked in rapid fashion. Zone 2 designation falls right in line with the collapse.

2003 to 2005 we were intensive, but the pressure on deer was FAR less during the gun season. There was refuge.

2007 and 2008. Hunter numbers in the woods increased big time and its never recovered in the last 7 years.

I am by no means blaming the change to zone 2 as our devil in the red dress. But I believe firmly it is a major factor in the current deer herd numbers.

 

[biglakeba$$]

Also keep in mind that we have nearly 10% more firearms hunters today than we did in the mid 2000's and we still cant achieve harvests any where close to those years.

Hunter effort has significantly increased and harvests have decreased.

 

[Bucks&Ducks]

Then why from 2001 to 2006 were harvest levels fairly flat?
Fast forward to 2007 and 2008 and things tanked in rapid fashion. Zone 2 designation falls right in line with the collapse.

2003 to 2005 we were intensive, but the pressure on deer was FAR less during the gun season. There was refuge.

2007 and 2008. Hunter numbers in the woods increased big time and its never recovered in the last 7 years.

I am by no means blaming the change to zone 2 as our devil in the red dress. But I believe firmly it is a major factor in the current deer herd numbers.

I would say it was somewhat flat but there was an overharvest which was going to lead to the collapse no matter. The DNR reports are a little goofy for 2001 and 2002 but it looked like management. So 5 years of multiple doe permits before the change. There were 500 more deer harvested when the change happened. However intensive harvest was taking out around 1500 does per year.

It would be nice if we could find a way to quantify the extended season but the more I think about it I think we are going to be stuck with small sample sizes and too many variables in most instances. I think we all agree it has some effect, how much we could debate until our yearling white oaks start producing acorns.

 

[sandbur]

It might have been years back, but I have seen some harvest data on how many deer are killed during all 3 weekends in my corner fo zone 1.
In 172, harvest during the midweek of the second week is not significant. Even the last weekend is very slow, but remember this is usually a lottery area. 241 would be a different situation with an extended season and the excess permits.

Still in 221, the 9 day season has been in place for many years. The problem has just been too d... many doe permits.

Has 241 always been rifle zone?

 

[*Hawaii5joe*]

I too scratch my head wondering where they go. I rarely, and I'm talking once or twice, could identify a buck that returned from the previous fall. One guy I know has 40 acres, plots pretty good, and feeds those suckers all winter long. I think that's the key. He gets the same bucks back and has been for over 5 years. I can hold them pretty good until someone logs or they start feeding and then they wander.

 

[bat man]

It would be nice if we could find a way to quantify the extended season .... I think we all agree it has some effect, how much we could debate until our yearling white oaks start producing acorns.

We can quantify it for opening weekend press releases. We just can't quantify to if it will expose an agenda.

Wind rain and corn much more important.

http://goanimate.com/videos/0jmyeYG...utm_medium=linkshare&utm_campaign=usercontent

 

[biglakeba$$]

Here is the kicker.
Our wildlife manager has told me that our deer population is stable over the past 7 years.

He cannot explain to me in any fashion how we can shoot nearly 40% fewer deer and the population somehow is stable for the last 7 years.
His only factoid to prove his estimates of current deer herd is that buck harvest has been relatively stable.

I tried to point out that our buck harvest is down around 20% and we have 10% more people in the woods with guns now.

He doesnt reply to me any more. Not sure if I caught him in an outright lie or if maybe his email account just broke.

 

[Bucks&Ducks]

It might have been years back, but I have seen some harvest data on how many deer are killed during all 3 weekends in my corner fo zone 1.
In 172, harvest during the midweek of the second week is not significant. Even the last weekend is very slow, but remember this is usually a lottery area. 241 would be a different situation with an extended season and the excess permits.

Still in 221, the 9 day season has been in place for many years. The problem has just been too d... many doe permits.

Has 241 always been rifle zone?

The western part of 241 used to be in zone 4 but it was in rifle. 243 was split into 241 and 246 back when 410 (?) became 241.

 

[sandbur]

Here is the kicker.
Our wildlife manager has told me that our deer population is stable over the past 7 years.

He cannot explain to me in any fashion how we can shoot nearly 40% fewer deer and the population somehow is stable for the last 7 years.
His only factoid to prove his estimates of current deer herd is that buck harvest has been relatively stable.

I tried to point out that our buck harvest is down around 20% and we have 10% more people in the woods with guns now.

He doesnt reply to me any more. Not sure if I caught him in an outright lie or if maybe his email account just broke.

That whole discussion sounds very familiar. But I have one klinker-the aerial survey does not match what the buck harvest said.