Minnesota Deer: The Search For Answers

[Satchmo]

I concur but hate the resignation. My aim in all this was philanthropic. 80 + % of the hunters in MN that fund all of our wildlife dept salaries hunt a few days a year. They deserve so much better afield.

When hunter dollars no longer fund the forests and wildlife that live there, our voice will matter none.

The reductions to our herd have been done for no legitimate reason and I hope we can get some change, but have hit mostly resistance from those in control.

It defies logic. Politics and agenda often do.

 

[Satchmo]

I understand your frustration with it all. I cannot begin to express the appreciation for all your efforts on behalf of the entire outdoor community. You have my full support. The unfortunate thing is that most deer hunters in MN do not realize what is really going on and are not hearing your message. I want nothing more than to see this movement gain traction and sweep through our good state. Your message needs to get out.

We all deserve better!

 

[bat man]

The unfortunate thing is that most deer hunters in MN do not realize what is really going on and are not hearing our message. I want nothing more than to see this movement gain traction and sweep through our good state. Your message needs to get out.

We all deserve better!

Spot on.

So when a fellow MN hunter says hunting sucks we say......

we tell them.......

they should........

 

[bat man]

I was thinking answer number 3 might be something that did not cost me my marriage.

 

[Satchmo]

I was thinking answer number 3 might be something that did not cost me my marriage.

I liked #3, but I'll stick with Stu's second list. LOL

 

[wiscwhip]

I imagine Buffalo County and perhaps Shawano or Waupaca County would support APRs...but even there I bet it would not be a super majority.

Buffalo Co CDAC Committee actually was smart enough to vote for a herd decrease, to keep the DNR from putting the smack down on them to reduce the herd through other rules/means. The CDAC Committee knows that they don't have to worry about overkill, because they shoot what they want. Just because the DNR produces doe tags, doesn't mean they get filled, at least in Buffalo. The archery outfitters don't want to have to make their clients shoot does if they don't have too, so if the doe population is reduced a bit by rifle hunters to begin with, it becomes a non-issue for the outfitters as well. They definitely don't want to move to anything like some type of Bonus Buck rules or anything like that which encourages multiple buck kills per season, so they had the foresight to get on board with taking things into their own hands to ensure the DNR doesn't force rules on them that they do not want.

 

[foggy]

The MDHA is busy recruiting members for its "DAY AT THE CAPITOL". I wish we could find a way to make a statement of protest to that day. What has MDHA done for you lately??


Hmmmm Billboard? WHAT HAS MDHA DONE FOR YOU LATELY? Join and Support MDDI / L.O.U.

 

[SD51555]

The cause marches on. I was in a sushi bar in Bismarck tonight. I struck up a conversation with a guy that hunts a 1700 acre lease by Parkers Prairie (I think that's what he said). I asked him what shape he thought the herd was in where he hunted. Without hesitation he said, "It's terrible. The DNR has absolutely blown it." We proceeded to discuss the whole issue, talked about coops, passing does, spray and pray plots, habitat work etc. I passed along the web address to this place. He seemed very interested and he's got 17 guys in his hunt group. I saw that all too common, "Somebody please do something" concern on his face. I hope he and his group show up here.

 

[biglakeba$$]

The cause marches on. I was in a sushi bar in Bismarck tonight. I struck up a conversation with a guy that hunts a 1700 acre lease by Parkers Prairie (I think that's what he said). I asked him what shape he thought the herd was in where he hunted. Without hesitation he said, "It's terrible. The DNR has absolutely blown it." We proceeded to discuss the whole issue, talked about coops, passing does, spray and pray plots, habitat work etc. I passed along the web address to this place. He seemed very interested and he's got 17 guys in his hunt group. I saw that all too common, "Somebody please do something" concern on his face. I hope he and his group show up here.

1700 acre lease and he cant do anything to help himself in that area???
Yikes..... That is 3 sq miles of land. If he cant do things within those boundaries, I think he has to rethink his personal plan possibly..... Just sayin.....

With that said, I will reserve overall judgement. I would love to see him join and get more details on what he has going on over there..... Thats triple insane if things are that bad hunting that many acres of land.

 

[WATD]

You underestimate the big picture plan. Our DNR knew exactly what they were doing chipping away at the herd 7 - 9% per year.

SE MN was the first area to go through the process a second time, and they voted to decrease the herd further down there without knowing it. There will be some deer coming back to northern MN, but nowhere near what we had 10 years ago. Mid MN is likely where they want it for numbers, perhaps even a bit high in central and east central MN where hunter satisfaction sits at 26%.

Re: SE... We (in the process) did know what we were doing and I know you like generalizing with out of context comments like "They voted to decrease the herd down further" etc. The truth is 2 permit areas that needed population reductions had the goals stay the same while 5 of the other 6 permit areas had increases in goals. That equates to 56% of zone 3 area and 55% of hunters hopefully seeing an increase in deer through goal setting, while another 20 or so percent shouldn't see change. That leaves only 21% of zone 3 area (25% of hunters) in those overpopulated areas might see less deer if goals are achieved. NO vote was made to decrease ANY goals. You're not wrong in saying that the total deer numbers might decrease, but you're way off with insinuating why. Remember I'm not here to argue, just keeping the facts straight.

 

[bat man]

Re: SE... We (in the process) did know what we were doing and I know you like generalizing with out of context comments like "They voted to decrease the herd down further" etc. The truth is 2 permit areas that needed population reductions had the goals stay the same while 5 of the other 6 permit areas had increases in goals. That equates to 56% of zone 3 area and 55% of hunters hopefully seeing an increase in deer through goal setting, while another 20 or so percent shouldn't see change. That leaves only 21% of zone 3 area (25% of hunters) in those overpopulated areas might see less deer if goals are achieved. NO vote was made to decrease ANY goals. You're not wrong in saying that the total deer numbers might decrease, but you're way off with insinuating why. Remember I'm not here to argue, just keeping the facts straight.

Zone 342 got its recommendation dumped based upon an aerial of count of 10 that was later modified back to an estimated density of 14. DNR claimed the vote would bump the herd up 50% when in reality they handed out a goal that kept the herd the same. The DNR will twist the numbers however they want to get under 15 or 20 dpsm per square mile of habitat.

If you are here to defend an agency that took a 9% scheduled herd reduction past 40% before we put the brakes on for them you are in the wrong place brother.

You want facts I got them.

 

[bat man]

Maybe MR WATD would like to show some love for a group that tells the hunters of MN that since buck harvest is stable the population is stable, only to turn around and tell forest auditors the above. You can go hug the agency that lowered our herds and lied to the public all day long, but this is not the best place.

 

[WATD]

Zone 342 got its recommendation dumped based upon an aerial of count of 10 that was later modified back to an estimated density of 14. DNR claimed the vote would bump the herd up 50% when in reality they handed out a goal that kept the herd the same. The DNR will twist the numbers however they want to get under 15 or 20 dpsm per square mile of habitat.

If you are here to defend an agency that took a 9% scheduled herd reduction past 40% before we put the brakes on for them you are in the wrong place brother.

You want facts I got them.

I'm certainly not here to defend the DNR. You intentionally throw out data to misrepresent the true picture and you want to crucify MR WATD. What makes what you do any different than who you are fighting? Zone 342 didn't get the recommended goal change for the reasons you stated (it got a 10% bump up). I wasn't happy, obviously your not happy, it is what it is. That was one PA in zone 3. MY rebut was to clarify your insinuation that the goal setting process voted to purposely decrease the population throughout zone 3, which couldn't be farther from the truth.

 

[Satchmo]

1700 acre lease and he cant do anything to help himself in that area???
Yikes..... That is 3 sq miles of land. If he cant do things within those boundaries, I think he has to rethink his personal plan possibly..... Just sayin.....

With that said, I will reserve overall judgement. I would love to see him join and get more details on what he has going on over there..... Thats triple insane if things are that bad hunting that many acres of land.

I'd like to hear more about their situation as well. They may well have been covinced to lease a piece of ground with a marginal deer population already. Only they know. Gosh, can you imagine being able to manage 1700 acres. May be tougher than you think with 17 guys though.

 

[biglakeba$$]

Boy I have to disagree.
We have 120 acres and its 50/50 open/wooded cover. They are averaging one guy per 100 acres of land. I find it hard to believe there are many places in that country that have anything less than 1 guy per 20 acres when its averaged out.

I question whether they are shooting does or not as well. You are right that it could be a bunch of row crops, but there is no reason why 1700 acres cant hold a lot of deer if it was managed for deer.

 

[biglakeba$$]

17 guys on 1700 acres isn't that phenomenal of a situation.

I should clarify a bit more.... in MN that IS a phenomanal situtaion..... In other states, that would be considered laughable. :)

 

[bat man]

342 had 14 dpsm going into the process and the new goal is 14. Where is the 10% bump you speak of? DNR claimed the recommendation would result in a 50% increase the the population and when the meeting was over they took the number used in that calculation and threw it in the trash.

Then they print a report that says a 25% bump in numbers is coming for 342. 2013 they 14 dpsm.

DNR math suggests 14 X 1.25 = 14?

 

[Satchmo]

"IF it's managed for deer"
They may be pounding the sloughs for ducks, chasing pheasants in the fields, riding wheelers over it all, or quite possibly there weren't many deer to start with. Surely should have potential if done correctly though. Would be fun to try things on that kind of scale.

 

[WATD]

342 had 14 dpsm going into the process and the new goal is 14. Where is the 10% bump you speak of? DNR claimed the recommendation would result in a 50% increase the the population and when the meeting was over they took the number used in that calculation and threw it in the trash.

Then they print a report that says a 25% bump in numbers is coming for 342. 2013 they 14 dpsm.

DNR math suggests 14 X 1.25 = 14?

View attachment 4101

I'm not sure where you or I are confused, but your graph clearly states that the goal range was increased in 342.

 

[SD51555]

I should clarify a bit more.... in MN that IS a phenomanal situtaion..... In other states, that would be considered laughable. :)

It wasn't paradise. There's a huge swamp in the middle.