I’m trying to get a better understanding on whitetail population dynamics after living outside of MN for a number of years. I am getting a feel for the types of issues that influence whitetail numbers and have seen the references to over-harvesting of does. My question is, do those of you who own and manage your own private parcels see numbers significantly better than those lands managed by DNR? Or better numbers than private lands with indiscriminate harvest? Could I presumably purchase a larger piece of property in a low density area and simply increase the deer numbers through habitat improvements and not shooting does?
MN Deer Density on Privately Managed Lands
- Thread starter Alaskan
- Start date
B
bat man
Guest
To a degree yes. To a point you will be happy? You can have the numbers, but the quality is much tougher to achieve. Those bucks like to wander, and in deer depressed areas they will be shot by somebody.
Your job would be a lot easier if you started in an area with decent numbers because as Brooks said those bucks like to travel and that gets them shot. If you had an 80 acre property with good cover in most areas in SE MN, you could realistically have an opportunity to kill a mature buck every year between the bow and gun seasons. I've never hunted the areas in Houston and Fillmore County in SE MN that have really high deer numbers, so it could be even better there. I believe a good 80 acre property in one of those counties would offer better deer hunting than a good 200 acre property in most other areas of the state. But you'll have to weigh that against your goal of good duck and pheasant hunting as well - having more acres would give you a lot more small game options.
I would also recommend staying away from properties with public land nearby unless the public land is some impenetrable swamp or something that would make it very difficult to hunt. On second thought, I'd even stay away from that.
I would also recommend staying away from properties with public land nearby unless the public land is some impenetrable swamp or something that would make it very difficult to hunt. On second thought, I'd even stay away from that.
wiscwhip
5 year old buck +
A large impenetrable public swamp where public access is far from your property might be a better choice than the same type of land that is private. Reason being, there is no motorized vehicles allowed on public land, every piece of private ground(I have seen many like this) will have an ATV or some other access trail through the swamp along the back somewhere that will be used at some point, maybe more often than you would like. If a guy has to walk way back in to your property line through nasty terrain he is more likely to stay away than someone who can ride up to it. Just a thought for guys looking at land with that situation.
Every situation Is truly unique. WW is right about private land. I have large tracts of public land on two sides of me that is Tamarack swamp and I have no issues with anyone coming across. The only high and dry border i have is the private land to my south, and those neighbors seem to love riding the border with their wheelers.wiscwhip post: 48949 said:
Alaskan, I think you can bring up the deer density on a single property to a point, BUT....its like pouring water on a flat rock. They will continue to spread out and your property will only have a slightly higher density than the overall herd. They may be unpressured and calm, but not much denser. Co-ops can help, but until the overall herd density is improved, you will not be able keep a higher density on your property.
wiscwhip
5 year old buck +
We lived this as well Satchmo. When our east border was all MFL public, I never saw another guy on that side of our property, even though it was high and dry, as it was 1/2 a mile from the nearest road access. After the paper company clearcuts it, they decide to sell it, and we get a neighbor who decides he needs an ATV trail(he uses it more like a racetrack) 10 yards off the line surrounding his whole place and numerous other trails throughout the rest. The guy has a tower stand right on his north border, directly in the center of his east/west property lines and drives his ATV right up to it every morning. That wouldn't be so bad, if he didn't drive right smack through the middle of the 15 year old mixed oak/conifer clearcut that has deer bedded in it all the time.:rolleyes:
bwoods11
5 year old buck +
One of the biggest problems in MN is that we manage by zone. One portion of the zone can be full of deer and the other literally nothing. I would like to see MN get doe numbers back up, then empower the landowners with a chance to buy landowner doe tags based on an assessment of what they actually have for deer. You could apply for the tag based on the county and current dpsm. No strings attached to this tag. Right now you have to let the public hunt your land to get a landowner doe tag?
Nearly every other state around us allows landowners to manage their farm with landowner tags. Simple, easy idea that would help long term.
Nearly every other state around us allows landowners to manage their farm with landowner tags. Simple, easy idea that would help long term.
biglakeba$$
5 year old buck +
Who would oversee the landowner tags though? The DNR cant manage at a macro level now, they cant be expected to micro manage as well.
Leaving it to a landowner is a big can of worms. One hunters dream is another hunters nightmare.
Leaving it to a landowner is a big can of worms. One hunters dream is another hunters nightmare.
bwoods11
5 year old buck +
Like they do in Iowa, Nebraska, SD they offer a tag per X amount of land. Say 40 or 80 acres? This tag would be purchased and could be used in archery or gun seasons. The county would simply have to meet the threshold of dpsm. This would reward the landowner who plants trees and food plots for habitat. It is their farm, if they feel the farm needs some management they could use this tag to harvest a doe or two?
As of right now, MN is one of the few states that does not allow landowners any preference for tags.
wiscwhip
5 year old buck +
This is what the new failing DMAP program in WI is supposed to accomplish. The problem is, we on sites like this are in the super minority when it comes to understanding and managing our lands for deer. We all understand the need to harvest does to keep populations in check. Far too many either do not understand or do not care and refuse to harvest does at all costs, to keep the disturbance to a minimum and to keep the "buck bait" on their land. This is precisely why the DMAP program will remain a failure in WI.
bwoods11
5 year old buck +
So you are saying you don't think landowner doe tags are a good idea?
wiscwhip
5 year old buck +
Not at all, on the contrary, we need them more than ever. I am speaking strictly about the multitude of landowners that will refuse to shoot does regardless, and in WI at least, there are many(I also know of lots of them from SE MN as well). What I am saying is that you can issue all the landowner tags(or put any kind of programs like DMAP into play) you want, but no matter what, you can't force landowners to buy them(or join the program) or use them if they do not wish to harvest does off their property. Oh, I have a way to force landowners into harvesting antlerless off their properties, but I will not post it anywhere, ever, because if the DNR's were to see something like that and run with it, all the landowners sphincters would pucker till it hurt.:eek:o_O;)
bwoods11
5 year old buck +
Ok yeah I know what you are saying. What got us in the mess we have now in the first place, was high deer numbers in certain areas and the DNR thought the whole state had a deer behind every tree. We need a system of control, but not excessive shooting of does.
B
bat man
Guest
I like the concept. Hot spots stay hot at times but it keeps cold spots from freezing?
wiscwhip
5 year old buck +
In WI, we had high deer numbers pretty much everywhere, and the DNR here was forced to reduce the overall herd. The problem is, it is easy to get a high harvest on public land by issuing unlimited doe tags, not so much on private land when the landowners won't shoot the does off their properties and then get doe tags instead to use on the public ground. During the 10 or so years we had unlimited antlerless tags available, I knew a group of farmers back in Western Juneau Co that wouldn't shoot 1 single doe off their own farms, but bought 2 or 3 doe tags each and went up to the National Wildlife Refuge/State Wildlife Area to make deer drives on public land to fill their freezers. That used to pi$$ me off to no end, and I for one am glad that WI makes you choose between public and private land antlerless tags when you purchase your license now.
Don't have all the answers, but a few years ago I pretty much gave up on hunting areas with lots of land fragmentation, areas with small parcels. Switched over to hunting large parcels of public land. My hunting has much approved and am relatively happy with it. Would still like to hunt those smaller parcels, but until the hunters get managed better it ain't worth the time.
wiscwhip
5 year old buck +
It is the best management tool possible if you have a true overpopulation issue and guys who refuse to do anything about it on there own. The issue we had in WI was that the DNR saw how well it worked to reduce the herd, then they used it for to long and in areas where it wasn't needed, to achieve their herd reduction. It pi$$ed a bunch of guys off because they saw the herd dwindling, but were forced to shoot a doe before they could get a sticker to fill their buck tag. Those guys went to their legislators and whined until they made EAB illegal through state statute. Now we can never use it again unless it is repealed by the legislature. This is also what brought about the audit that gave us the Dr. Deer Report aka Kroll Report aka Deer Trustee Report that is now driving the rule changes in WI, well that was until Scooter Walker decided last week that he wants to gut the DNR and take power for himself.
