Hot off the press. Hunters killed just more than 139,000 deer during all seasons. This is the lowest since the mid to late 80’s.
My shocked face.
IDO » Forums » Hunting Forums » Deer Hunting » MN 2014 Deer Kill Numbers
Hot off the press. Hunters killed just more than 139,000 deer during all seasons. This is the lowest since the mid to late 80’s.
My shocked face.
First time i’ve never filled a tag…Also the first year i decided to ice fish from Nov16th on
But, Not filling a tag was entirely for lack of effort, or desire to hunt rather than fish this year. I have no doubt i could have filled a tag.
COntinue on the deer rant.
Not a rant. Just stating facts Mr. imsoawesomeicankilladeeranytimeiwant.
This year was one of my best years for seeing deer in the last 10 years. I had no problem filling a doe tag even after waiting and passing on many 2.5 to 3.5 year old bucks. I am certain numbers are down because the season was structured that way. No doubt low deer numbers in some areas also affected this total, but I hardly think we can blame low numbers for totally for the low harvest.
Not a rant. Just stating facts Mr. imsoawesomeicankilladeeranytimeiwant.
Funny, I was thinking the same thing…
So far winter is shaping up nicely. Not so much snow and the cold weather didn’t start up until January. I’m hoping the Zone 1 deer herd catches a better break for 2015.
It came as a big surprise to me, but this deer season was my best in over 10 years. I ended up with 3 bucks and my group ended up with 5 overall in a season that we would have been happy to just see a few deer. Like Tegg said, hopefully the winter remains mild and the deer catch a break and can make a fast rebound in those low #’s area’s.
Not a rant. Just stating facts Mr. imsoawesomeicankilladeeranytimeiwant.
Nice.
I almost hunted the last weekend just so that i can continue to say i’ve always shot a deer…But fishing has been so good.
I have nothing bad to say about you. Continue with your facts.
So far winter is shaping up nicely. Not so much snow and the cold weather didn’t start up until January. I’m hoping the Zone 1 deer herd catches a better break for 2015.
Mild winters are definitely necessary. Even though I hate them as a sledder.
We all know what the other two factors are. Both of which are controllable by man.
In another forum where the members included people who are on the various advisory committees, I placed this request:
Too much focus is being placed on “the number”. Finding the ideal balance between deer populations and the allowable harvest. Finding this number is a fool’s errand.
What I want to see is a VASTLY more nimble process with adjustments being made on a year-on-year basis.
Currently what we have is only an alleged “long term” management plan. You cannot achieve a long term plan for something like deer populations, where the outcomes are heavily influenced by near-term factors. There is no way to just set the cruise control and arrive at the destination with no input from the driver.
Right now we have a system that is the equivalent of driving a car off a cliff and then attempting to steer it. We are 7-10 years BEYOND the point at which corrective decisions should have been made if were to have any chance at avoiding the place we are today. And now we are just entering the recovery planning stage, so any impacts from this stage will be felt 2-3 years down the road.
We need a process where rapid adjustments are made each and every year in order to keep the management plan on course for the long term. That management plan has to include some things that will not be popular with some hunters at some times, but simply caving in and allowing the deer numbers to plunge off a cliff should be even more unacceptable.
Grouse
I couldn’t agree more Grouse. Some adjustments need to be made every year. Some very slight, some more dramatic, and even some that are not real popular with the hunting community, but it has to happen. Better ways to track deer numbers would be a huge factor is my thought. They do not have accurate numbers or even ways to achieve them at this point which makes managing the numbers nearly impossible.
The DNR cut back big time in Northern Minnesota on doe permits…Wouldn’t that be considered a 1 year “adjustment” to low deer #’s? If anyone has other ideas (Other than allowing wolf hunting which ain’t goona’ happen now…) shoot out your idea’s instead of just saying something should be done…RR
They seem to be able to react from one season to the next. That should suffice as long as they “react”. I think the first step is re-educating a large portion of the hunting population that everyone doesnt get to harvest a deer every year. That’s what I see as the main reaction from many.
Sticker, I think the place where the problem with the overall “hand’s off” management approach became obvious when the DNR only began to adjust doe permits and throttle back on intensive harvest regs in 2013, and then more assertively 2014.
Unfortunately, this delayed reaction came 5 years after we saw a harvest decline of nearly 40,000 deer in a single year in 2008. That is the largest single decline in the deer harvest that has been seen in decades, but yet that decline and 2 more years of rapid decline prompted no significant action.
It would be nice to be able to speak in terms of total deer populations rather than harvest numbers, but the DNR does not have any scientifically valid population studies that cover the whole state. There are a patchwork of estimates, guesstimates, SWAGS, and outright blank spots where no reliable data exists.
I’m with you, the first step is to establish vastly better data on the actual deer populations for the whole state so that fine adjustments can be made and targeted at very specific areas on a year-on-year basis.
Also, just to bring up what I sense is an uncomfortable reality for some MN hunters: Doe permits and predator control are not the only management tools. In the past the DNR has resisted having all the tools brought on the table because it’s politically unpopular with some hunters who have become used to harvesting a deer every year.
Just a few of the tools that are often missing from the conversation:
– APRs
– Total harvest quotas
– Limiting license sales by area
– Reducing season length
– Moving seasons
Deer hunters have to realize that the only constant is change. Nothing can stay the same forever and deer hunting is no different. Also, as many have found out over the last season, doing nothing is a decision and it has consequences just like taking some kind of action.
Grouse
Just a few of the tools that are often missing from the conversation:
– APRs
– Total harvest quotas
– Limiting license sales by area
– Reducing season length
– Moving seasonsDeer hunters have to realize that the only constant is change. Nothing can stay the same forever and deer hunting is no different. Also, as many have found out over the last season, doing nothing is a decision and it has consequences just like taking some kind of action.
Grouse
The DNR cut back big time in Northern Minnesota on doe permits…Wouldn’t that be considered a 1 year “adjustment” to low deer #’s? If anyone has other ideas (Other than allowing wolf hunting which ain’t goona’ happen now…) shoot out your idea’s instead of just saying something should be done…RR
Cutting back on doe permits last year was 3-5 years too late, that to me is not a yearly adjustment…it’s a reaction to OH NO, we may have let this go a little too long!
Just a few of the tools that are often missing from the conversation:
– APRs
– Total harvest quotas
– Limiting license sales by area
– Reducing season length
– Moving seasons
Grouse – I’m normally on the same thought line’s as you on most issues – Not this one. ARR’s are not a deer herd management tool in any way. It is a BIG BUCK tool and nothing more. If Hunters who like to harvest a deer for the meat and could care less about the size of the horns are forced to pass on small bucks. They are more likely to shoot doe’s. A loss of a small buck is 1 deer out of the herd size the following year. A loss of a doe is 2 if not 3 deer removed from the herd the following year. I don’t see how you or anyone else thinks this is the way to increase the # of deer overall. If you favor APR’s for the purpose of bigger bucks then that’s OK. Just say that is why your are in favor of it. It gets old hearing people push this ( APR ) as a herd management tool, when it is not.
Cutting back on doe permits last year was 3-5 years too late, that to me is not a yearly adjustment…it’s a reaction to OH NO, we may have let this go a little too long!
[/quote]
Agreed…
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>TheFamousGrouse wrote:</div>
Just a few of the tools that are often missing from the conversation:
– APRs
– Total harvest quotas
– Limiting license sales by area
– Reducing season length
– Moving seasonsGrouse – I’m normally on the same thought line’s as you on most issues – Not this one. ARR’s are not a deer herd management tool in any way. It is a BIG BUCK tool and nothing more. If Hunters who like to harvest a deer for the meat and could care less about the size of the horns are forced to pass on small bucks. They are more likely to shoot doe’s.
I would partially agree with you. Danger! Nuanced argument ahead.
You are absolutely correct in that APRs, as they have so far been used in MN, are not an OVERALL heard management tool. Totally agree with you there.
However, let’s take a broader look. When most hunters hear “APR”, the instant reaction is APR = Can’t shoot small bucks. Well, that’s only one type of APR with one goal in mind. There are others.
What about in an area where the populations were so distressed that simply going to no doe permits is not enough? That’s where APRs can come in as an overall management tool. Adding an APR restriction would further limit the overall harvest.
And who says APRs can only be used to limit the harvest of small bucks? You could have APRs that say 6 or over just as easily. Or an over/under of say >8 or <4. Lots of APRs beyond the current application in MN.
While some hunters would grouse at that, I’d say look at the alternatives:
– Total harvest quota system. Section automatically closes when X deer are registered. The whole season could last 1 day.
– Limited entry draw for tags. Any tag! In other words, some hunters sit home for a season in that area because they don’t draw a tag.
Lots of tools in the toolbox, we in MN just have gotten used to holding a hammer and therefore every problem becomes a nail.
Grouse
One thing to keep in mind here. Everyone seems to think we got to this point because the DNR totally messed up. I believe they did not mess up at all. I believe they got us to this point because it was what they were aiming for. Hunters want more deer #’s, but not everyone does. The overall % of deer hunters in our population is rather small. There are many other pressures put on the DNR than those by just hunters. Keep in Mind it is a government agency
Yes, FT, it could go down that way, but at some point this vast insurance industry conspiracy ideas gets a little hard to see as the main reason why we have less deer all in the sudden.
First off, why would the DNR, on it’s own, care what the insurance industry wants? The insurance industry doesn’t buy hunting licenses.
Of course, it could be the politicians putting pressure on the DNR leadership and that flows down into the policy, but at some point this gets pretty grassy knoll. Wouldn’t somebody lower down, at some point, blow the whistle?
I’m just looking at what sounds more logical:
Option A: Vast insurance-government conspiracy to secretly declare war on deer and cut the deer heard in MN in half. All without anybody knowing. Or if somebody knows, they have a terrible accident in the parking ramp at the DNR headquarters or they get sent to the DNR’s secret detention facility on an island on Lake of the Woods.
Option B: A large scale intensive harvest policy is left in place for too long and hunters continue with very high harvest numbers as populations decline. Suddenly, after a long run of mild winters, we get 2 harsh winters in a row and winterkill takes out more deer than at anytime in the past decade . Meanwhile, there are 1500 more wolves in MN than there were 20 years ago, each of them eating an average 10 deer per year.
For me, Option B seems a bit more plausible.
Grouse
My issue is management by half truths. Let’s use the wolf population estimate or the amount of food the average wolf utilizes each year. The average healthy wolf will eat 19 deer per year. I call BS on this stat also. Wolves are not known to hoard their kill and make the most efficient use of it like a grizzly or lion. The DNR does NOT have a solid grasp on the sheer numbers of wolves in Mn today.
How about this CWD scare. Let’s eradicate every deer within 200 miles because it might get a disease. One that was never truly validated to exist in the wild.
How about stopping the spread of AIS. Ya, a sticker is gonna do that.
Sorry, my confidence in the DNR leadership is zilch.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.