Couple miles east of Mille Lacs.
Yup, very hard to compare the 2 areas the same. I completely agree with the assessment that way.
[/quote]
I agree. 157 in Pine County and 157 in Aitkin county are very different and probably should be separate areas.
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Bearcat89 wrote:</div>
Couple miles east of Mille Lacs.Yup, very hard to compare the 2 areas the same. I completely agree with the assessment that way.
I agree. 157 in Pine County and 157 in Aitkin county are very different and probably should be separate areas.
[/quote]
100 percent agree.
214 has had strong numbers over the last 5 plus years, have been able to take 3 deer during that span, maybe longer. That’s not including the early season either. As for this year, based on talking to neighbors, family and friends, majority of deer being taken have been bucks with a fair amount of big ones mixed in. I see deer quite a bit more often than I don’t throughout the three seasons. My uncles who farm would like if it was more like NE MN, without the wolves. They do not like the deer. I dont even like telling them I passed on one!
Deer harvest as of 11/18/24 sits at 139,134.
I feel sorry for the deer new CWD zones where hunters not only are able to hunt the 3A zone – but also now the 3B zone. Another 9 days of hammering the population. Then onto Muzzleloader and Special late season.
I will say it again and speaking for Zone 642. The population continues to be pulverized due to the DNR’s CWD “kill em all” approach.
We DON’T, as hunters – have to pull the trigger just because we can.
72 morning and evening sits and finally saw my 5th adult doe. To say there isn’t a problem is being part of the problem.
159 East of Hinckley. 120 acres private land.
IMO from my own experience and talking to other property owners, deer numbers are at or above the 20-year average in this area.
We were texting back and forth between 2 stands last weekend. At the same time, we had 19 deer in sight.
What is much lower now is hunter numbers AND the overall hunter effort as far as hours in the field is a tiny fraction of what it used to be. There are just WAY fewer hunters and you can’t take license sales as the truth, because that doesn’t track time actually spent hunting.
Examples: I have 2 hunting properties that border me. One is 120 acres, the other is 160 acres. The 120-acre parcel back in the 80s and 90s had an average of 8 to 10 hunters in camp. They shot a meat pole full of deer every year, I bet their average was 6-8 deer every year. The owner sold the property this year because for the past 5 years is was down to him and his nephew and his nephew can only hunt one weekend due to work commitments.
The 160-acre property has seen a similar decline, there used to be a huge party over here, but now it is down to 4 guys on 160 acres. They hunted opening weekend and then told me that was it for the year due to family commitments. They are QDM guys, which is great for me because that means they hardly ever shoot a deer.
I remember stopping in at Tobies on the Friday before the season opened and it was mayhem back in the 1980s. This year it was like every other weekend, no noticeable increase in traffic.
I hunt in 701 and between me and the lady friend can shoot 10 deer. I have seen multiple does and at least 10 different bucks on numerous occasions. Have yet to take anything. So we DONT all shoot everything just cause we can.
You missed my point Jeremy but I can see how it was misconstrued. In our area the population is significantly down. Many of the long-term area hunters also know and see this and are taking the same approach you are. So am I. However – on the other hand there are plenty of hunters that know the population is dwindling – but take all they can – because they can at the moment – only to be the same ones that complain (I hear it now in the next few years) that they are not seeing any deer. Hence – why not be proactive (don’t have to shot and fill every tag because we can).
AND the overall hunter effort
The way people hunt is different than it used to be too. For 25 years, I hunted in a large group of about 10 hunters and after a couple days of stand hunting, we made drives. We’d push deer around from one piece to another. I enjoyed doing it because it was a different way of hunting than just sitting in a tree all the time.
No one does that anymore. Its almost completely stand or blind hunting in a stationary location. Bigger groups of hunters don’t move any deer around anymore because they either don’t exist or they don’t hunt that way. All people do now is stand hunt and wait.
agree with you grim, deer drives are pretty much non existent now it seems. At least in the areas I hunt they are. We used to get together with other parties around and do drives, none now.
However – on the other hand there are plenty of hunters that know the population is dwindling – but take all they can
642 has a heavy bowhunter presence too. Don’t forget about the effects of what they can do, having the same disease tags access that the gunners do for roughly six weeks before the gun season ever starts. On the opening of 3A season morning by 7 AM I already had counted 4 orphaned fawns. Those young deer did not lose their mothers on that morning. One has to look at what seasons were open PRIOR to the start of the regular gun season to know where the does went.
^We had a party of 17 guys when I started hunting at age 12 in Buffalo County. I’d say an average opening weekend would result in 15 deer harvested. We sat the first day then drove deer nonstop after that.
Now the opening weekend in Wisconsin it’s 6 or 7 of us and a couple young’ins. We stand hunt primarily. I’ll often walk points and “bird dog” as we call it when I get out of my stand and move towards other guys in our party after sitting for a few hours. I’d bet half the deer I shoot now with rifle/shotgun are doing this. The older I get, the harder it is for me to sit still.
The changing dynamic for us is that more people take archery season seriously and devote tons of time to it. A lot of the guys that were in our party primarily archery hunt now. They sneak out for a few hours 2-3 times a week targeting deer they’ve patterned with cell cams versus trying to take full days off from work/kids sports/and everything else for deer camp. It seems “wrong” to miss out on the camp, but it’s the reality. Most of our guys who WANT to harvest a deer have had tons of opportunities by the time late November in Wisconsin comes around. It makes it more difficult to drop everything for deer camp or justify it when they’ve already been in the woods that much and have a deer in the freezer/on the wall from a month earlier. The regulars that are left in our Wisconsin camp are now just appreciate the camaraderie, and couldn’t care less if they take a deer with their rifle as they’ve already scratched the itch with their bow. I make it a point to make an apperance at camp for Friday night and at least sit opening morning to keep what’s left of it alive, but I am just as guilty as the rest with not being able to put life on hold and stay away from life/work.
The way people hunt is different than it used to be too. For 25 years, I hunted in a large group of about 10 hunters and after a couple days of stand hunting, we made drives. We’d push deer around from one piece to another. I enjoyed doing it because it was a different way of hunting than just sitting in a tree all the time.
No one does that anymore.
Yes, totally agree. Nobody, us included, drives deer anymore.
Besides not having the numbers of people to do it, I also think the reason guys give is that so often the biggest buck, it seemed, eluded the drive and then snuck across the fence and promptly got whacked by the neighbors 15 minutes after the drive ended.
Honestly, I’m actually thinking about starting deer drives again.
I used to hunt with a small group that did drives, I hated it. Never once would I feel like I beat the deer at his own game. I don’t really even gun hunt any more. I would rather read the woods and sit with a bow and ambush a deer in its own comfort zone. Being one with nature is what it’s about for me.
Doing a drive and trying to just push deer to a few guys is about the last thing I want to teach my kid when it comes to hunting. Teaching him woodsmanship and how to understand sign is what I want to teach him.
If some one wants us to join a drive just to shoot stuff, we will probably pass 100 percent of the time. I guess hunting for me is alot more then just the kill. Drives are just for kills, no skill building, no woodsmanship, and so on. I think many others feel the same and that’s why it’s a old school dying thing.
I agree Bearcat 100%. Sadly there are a couple groups right in my backyard consisting of 20 plus each yr 2nd season starting this Saturday that shoot up to 60 deer a year with a “brown it’s down” mentality
I don’t hunt, so have no skin in this game. However, I did look-up the annual number of road killed deer after seeing some roadside carnage this weekend. These numbers are estimated by insurance companies since so few are reported to law enforcement.
Minnesota – 40,000
Wisconsin – 70,000
Thought that was interesting. Combined with annual hunter harvest, thats a lot of deer.
The insurance companies are to blame for the liberal bag limits.
At least a large portion of the blame.
They spend a lot of money on lobbying and influencing everybody from politicians to DNR brass.
They’d prefer every deer was dead.
Now my local body shop would prefer they not even have a deer season!
Numbers came out Sunday tags are up 3% this year. First year in 20 years there was an up tick in new or more hunters. Not huge but good finally to see that more hunters were back out after years of declining.
License sales are up? I hadn’t heard that, that really is great news. License sales have been on a multi-decade nationwide decline. Even a small increase is reason to celebrate.
Hunter success is looking like it’ll be decent this year as well. Still a little lower than I’d like to see up north, but significant improvement over the last two years.
To the post above this. I’m fairly certain the insurance company story is a myth. While I’m not top brass, I work in natural resource management, pretty much at every agency under the sun by now. I’ve never once ran into insurance company lobbyists. I have run into farmer lobbyists, legislators or groups supporting farmers that push to keep deer populations low.
I asked an insurance executive once, his response was “since deer are managed at the state level we’d have to employ a lobbyist in damn near every state, that’s ridiculously expensive. Instead we just raise premiums a little bit in regions with high vehicle strike incidence rates.” This makes more sense to me.
That reminds me, I’ve got a deer to register and a road kill head to turn in for CWD testing 
The insurance companies are to blame for the liberal bag limits.
At least a large portion of the blame.
They spend a lot of money on lobbying and influencing everybody from politicians to DNR brass.
They’d prefer every deer was dead.
Now my local body shop would prefer they not even have a deer season!
I hear this a lot, and have never seen or heard any credible evidence for it. Not saying it’s not possible but I believe this is another urban myth. Or would it be a rural myth in this case? Anyway, lobbying is expensive and that spend for a minimal impact on deer numbers, which is a tiny portion of insurance claim $ seems like a poor lobbying investment. But if you have any evidence, I’m all ears.
Quote:
These numbers are estimated by insurance companies since so few are reported to law enforcement.
Minnesota – 40,000
Wisconsin – 70,000
So you think the Insurance companies estimated these numbers for the heck of it?
40,000 claims in MN alone and you think they just ignore that?
There was a post about this exact topic a while back but I’m too lazy to look it up.
I believe it stated something about the legislature determining the DNR deer quotas not the DNR itself or at least having a major say in it. The insurance companies have lobbyists in every state, count on it. Not 1 or more dedicated to deer but a whole array of topics.
Oh I’m sure they don’t ignore it. I think they raise premiums accordingly. Which is much easier and more effective than influencing deer hunting regulations.
It’s not impossible, politicians are a sneaky bunch. But coming from someone that helps set deer hunting regulations I have never run into it.
646, we’ve had 7 taken off our farm (230 acres) so far that I know of, not sure about the neighbors that hunt part of it during the A season. Also have found 2 decent bucks dead, one from a car and one from unknown causes.
With any luck we’ll take another 25 or so this weekend off mine and my neighbors farm. Won’t even make a dent in the population.
I hear this a lot, and have never seen or heard any credible evidence for it. Not saying it’s not possible but I believe this is another urban myth. Or would it be a rural myth in this case? Anyway, lobbying is expensive and that spend for a minimal impact on deer numbers, which is a tiny portion of insurance claim $ seems like a poor lobbying investment. But if you have any evidence, I’m all ears.
Not that facts will ever make this myth die, but no, there never has been any evidence of it because it’s not happening.
First, the deer seasons and limits are not set by legislators, but by the DNR. So spending money on lobbying the legislative representatives wouldn’t have any impact on bag limits.
Secondly, if the insurance industry had so much sway over the DNR, why would bag limits EVER go down? I mean, if the insurance industry wanted all the deer dead and the DNR was only too happy to make that happen for them, why would bag limits EVER be reduced? Low deer numbers are what the insurance industry wants, so why throttle back once the low numbers have been achieved and then allow the population to go back up?
Makes no sense, if the DNR was in the pocket of the insurance industry, we would see statewide 3 deer limits with either-sex and bonus tags besides. Why would we have bucks only and no doe permits?
As others have said, the insurance industry answer to every problem is always the same: Raise premiums or slash coverage. If deer collisions were really the biggest problem the industry faced, they’d just pull car-animal collisions from the coverage like they do with floods.
A buddy just smoked a buck this morning with his hyundai going 65 on hwy 10 and he never hit the brakes. Car is totaled. Pushed the hood back to the windshield and the bucks antlers fell off LOL Sucks, but it happens all the time.
With any luck we’ll take another 25 or so this weekend off mine and my neighbors farm. Won’t even make a dent in the population.
Because you can must make sure you do it right?
A buddy just smoked a buck this morning with his hyundai going 65 on hwy 10 and he never hit the brakes. Car is totaled. Pushed the hood back to the windshield and the bucks antlers fell off LOL Sucks, but it happens all the time.
I hit an 8 pointer on my way to the stand about 10 years ago (slighly ironic, I know). Had not seen a single buck all season and of course nail one with the truck. The antlers popped off when it happened too. I still have them.
Haha Gim! That is indeed ironic or is it coincidence like the old Alanis MOrrisette dong Ironic that really wasnt ironic at all.
https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/mammals/deer/management/statistics.html
Definitely interesting to look at each zone and the total deer kills / buck to doe kill ratio, etc.
I think the most interesting to me is the DNR continues to have the “kill em all” attitude in the 600 zones – but the kill doesn’t come close to the zones just above the cities.
We could take at least 75 if we wanted, and in reality we probably should. The area our farms are is part of a valley that’s roughly 8 square miles. There’s less than 50 deer taken per year in that 8 square miles. Add in the next valley to the northwest, where even fewer deer are taken, and you run into a population problem. Unfortunately we’re completely surrounded by people who don’t pay the price for the overpopulation, but reap the rewards of us feeding a considerable portion of our crops to them.
We’ve taken an average of 25/year off these farms for 25 years straight, and the population has only increased.
25 a YEAR???? jiminy christmas.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
