Menu
What's new
By:
Filters

Ottertail area goals to drop below 12 dpsm pre fawn

B

bat man

Guest
Graphic says 25 dpsm is max BCC and DNR wants 20 - 50% as RCC (regional carrying capacity) New goals next year between 5 and 12.

I am reading between the lines - but its coming unless this data set is thrown out and replaced with something else.

Arts zone may end up with more deer than the guys up north! Whoa.

Safari 23.png

Safari 24.png
 
At a meeting in Brainerd, Stu and I heard that Great Lakes states biologists got together about 5-8 years ago and decided, in general, to reduce deer numbers. The statement was made by a just retired area wildlife manager that it had nothing to do with CWD concerns.

Ottertail has been one of the areas with decent deer numbers and where selective harvest has some merit. Many of the rest of us just struggle to see a deer every other day.

I also heard a discussion from a few weeks ago that Camp Ripley still has too many deer in the eyes of one wildlife manager.

Get to the stakeholder meetings and speak up!

Brooks-Has MBI submitted any comments to the Camp Ripley stakeholder team meetings? Morrison County MDHA has done so. Area businesses are beginning to feel the decrease, as interest in the Camp Ripley hunts declines. Area hunters no longer even care to apply for Camp Ripley.
 
Ripley is Ripley. They can do whatever they want. Stakeholder meetings mean nothing there. Get the Colonel on board and change comes. Until he speaks it will remain crap.
 
bat man said:
Ripley is Ripley. They can do whatever they want. Stakeholder meetings mean nothing there. Get the Colonel on board and change comes. Until he speaks it will remain crap.
Click to expand...
That was somewhat discussed. Where else but at stakeholder teams do we express our opinions? Sounds to me like DNR is still calling the shots in Camp. Too many deer.....
 
You will get ZERO change until the Colonel wants it. I can't make it any clearer.
 
batman-check your email.
 
The only reason ottertail has deer numbers the way they do is thru loose coop's. Those guys keep in touch with there neighbors for the most part, restrain from shooting too many does and let the small bucks go. A lot of guys thinking alike for one cause.
 
wklman said:
The only reason ottertail has deer numbers the way they do is thru loose coop's. Those guys keep in touch with there neighbors for the most part, restrain from shooting too many does and let the small bucks go. A lot of guys thinking alike for one cause.
Click to expand...

I would disagree. They have goals higher than SE MN right now. If you slash those goals from 25 to 12 in (zone 241), very few will not feel the pain. Better watch out.
 
bat man said:
I would disagree. They have goals higher than SE MN right now. If you slash those goals from 25 to 12 in (zone 241), very few will not feel the pain. Better watch out.
Click to expand...

Agreed, I should have put "from what I have seen" before I started that post. But with that said there are blocks in 241 where people have taken it on themselves to be better stewards of the deer herd in their area.
 
wklman said:
Agreed, I should have put "from what I have seen" before I started that post. But with that said there are blocks in 241 where people have taken it on themselves to be better stewards of the deer herd in their area.
Click to expand...

I hunt/manage a pocket like you describe in Mille Lacs County, but the general area is terrible. Your quality buck hunting will deteriorate quickly. Your hunting experience in general will decrease.
 
Safari 26.png Safari 23.png

Was talking w/BigBass and he pulled a zone hardiness map. Almost laughable the DNR thinks they can print map showing Buffalo County with the same BCC as Ortonville. Cant wait for Wednesday.
 
Thats a terrible idea. We already don't have enough deer and to reduce the population will do nothing but eliminate hunters.

Where did the BCC come from? Seems like a very large area to apply such a general large BCC #.
 
That has got to be one of the worst attempts at giving out info to the deer hunters that I have ever seen.

The 2 maps are absolutely identical. All the DNR did was used a map of hardiness zones and stamped a number they grabbed out of the air for carrying capacity.

I would like to hear the logic that Windom MN can carry more deer than Ottertail County...... The DNR becomes more of a laughing stock as time goes by.
 
I guess we asked for maximum deer numbers and we got it.

It looks like Brooks area will be managed for the same amount of deer as many. Target of 12 dpsm and an actual population of 7.2.

What are these mangers trying to do, but hang themselves as they will have no license dollars. Or is it just going to be a bunch of anti hunters/wolf lover running the show?

I really think the whole works should be fired and start over.
 
Freeborn said:
Thats a terrible idea. We already don't have enough deer and to reduce the population will do nothing but eliminate hunters.

Where did the BCC come from? Seems like a very large area to apply such a general large BCC #.
Click to expand...

Jerry-what is the goal for your area at present? Is the population about in lien wit hthe goal?
 
16 dpsm is what we have now according to the DNR.

Goal is 15-19 dpsm.

I personally think they are a little fat on their estimation. More importantly is the fact that we have such a low goal for the habitat to begin with.

Our area has 2 simple problems.
1. Their population estimation is BS. My manager says our populations are the same for the last 7 years, yet our harvest has PLUMMETED 40%. And thats with almost 10% more firearms hunters than we had 7 years ago. More people and we still cant even shoot more deer.... Blatantly obvious problem.
2. The goals they have are BS. This area can easily hold more deer.
 
biglakeba$$ said:
I personally think they are a little fat on their estimation. More importantly is the fact that we have such a low goal for the habitat to begin with.

Our area has 2 simple problems.
1. Their population estimation is BS. My manager says our populations are the same for the last 7 years, yet our harvest has PLUMMETED 40%. And thats with almost 10% more firearms hunters than we had 7 years ago. More people and we still cant even shoot more deer.... Blatantly obvious problem.
2. The goals they have are BS. This area can easily hold more deer.
Click to expand...

I could say the same about 221, but the estimates are very fat. These areas need to be smaller and if more doe tags are needed by a town, don't blanket the whole area with bow tags.
I hear discussions from one block to the east of you have centered on wolves and areas being too large. Town/suburban people are complaining about too many deer. but some feed during the winter. They don't realize what goes on 5 or 10 miles away like foggy says. Yup, this is foggy's area.
 
bat man said:
Graphic says 25 dpsm is max BCC and DNR wants 20 - 50% as RCC (regional carrying capacity) New goals next year between 5 and 12.

I am reading between the lines - but its coming unless this data set is thrown out and replaced with something else.

Arts zone may end up with more deer than the guys up north! Whoa.

View attachment 3927

View attachment 3928
Click to expand...
Using this map for anything related to real deer numbers is a bunch of BS. This map only shows theoretical BCC based on climate by latitude. It gives absolutely no environmental or statistical weight to the general habitat of those areas. It is full of pretty colors that will surely dazzle the minds of the Fudd's, that is why they can present this crap as meaningful data.
 
biglakeba$$ said:
16 dpsm is what we have now according to the DNR.

Goal is 15-19 dpsm.

I personally think they are a little fat on their estimation. More importantly is the fact that we have such a low goal for the habitat to begin with.

Our area has 2 simple problems.
1. Their population estimation is BS. My manager says our populations are the same for the last 7 years, yet our harvest has PLUMMETED 40%. And thats with almost 10% more firearms hunters than we had 7 years ago. More people and we still cant even shoot more deer.... Blatantly obvious problem.
2. The goals they have are BS. This area can easily hold more deer.
Click to expand...

Agree BLB. Our area can carry more deer then we currently have. I have not spoken to our area manager but he sounds like a puppet who wants to make little effort.

If they try and significantly reduce the herd size in Ottertail I do feel there will be significant push back. I will say that Ottertail County or at least in my area the hunters would push back if they nkew the DNR was intentionally trying to reduce the herd. Right now I would say many have no idea the harvest is down 40%.
 
Last edited:
All areas of the state can handle more deer, but this set of 'data' borders on absurd. I have requested it be removed from the process.

This data was released early because we forced the DNR hand on transparency. We will get the data set thrown out if people make noise because we have time.

The other request I made was related to zone 342 recommendations being discarded. It appears the DNR used an aerial of count of 10 to shoot down an increase voted by the stakeholders. They said the recommended increase would boost deer numbers 50% above the current level (10 dpsm from aerial). Then they changed the estimated herd size back to 14 and the zone went without a bump. Used the 10 for a week and then threw it out.

The books were cooked with multiple data sets and nobody down SE caught it. It matters because this time around we are working increases off of actual numbers (so I have been told).

We may only achieve damage control long term but the masses are watching and a distrust of the DNR is growing. They made the bed. Now everybody is sleeping in it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top