Came across this article on Facebook and thought it was fairly interesting especially with all the midwest hunters that are on the site. Sorry if someone already posted this. I am not a fan of the new Tapatalk app and the way things are organized I couldn't find the where someone had posted already so I decided to share. http://mnbowhunters.org/2015/02/16/did-our-dnr-sell-the-herd-for-pennies/ Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sometime I am embarrassed to say that I was and still am an employee of Minnesota DNR division of forestry. That being said between the wolf, policy, and habitat the northern Minnesota deer herd is never going to be what it was.
I found a similar article surrounding this issue as well and was going to post it today. Can anyone confirm that what is being said is true? MN Deer Density Initiative | Will the Deer be Back?
It will be hard to 'prove' it to be true but one thing is easily proven. Our MN DNR has manipulated and misinterpreted data with an agenda to lower the deer herd much further than publicly announced in from 2005 - 2007. [video=youtube_share;svXegzcOiIM]http://youtu.be/svXegzcOiIM[/video]
Of course, in northern mn, there never used to be deer until the logging in the late 1800's. But we tend to forget that.
Sustainable logging has worked in Minnesota for decades, and habitat for sportsmen and woman was created. Grand Rapids area is (or was) one of the best areas in the country for ruffed grouse because of sustainable logging as well as in the northern areas of the state with the Grouse and Deer population. Areas that are not logged the BWCA traditionally have lower numbers of both deer and grouse. Hunting is an industry just like logging in the state and I don't feel it is a bad thing that we have manipulated the landscape of Minnesota.
Its now proven. Deer numbers are not coming back in MN. To: Brooks johnson <[email protected]> This was a very public and transparent process. It was heavily covered in the press. See Too many deer in forests? (MN) | Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy for example. You are right though, this was a major factor of why forest deer population goals were generally lowered. And in gets back to my whole original point of this debate we are having. You are simply advocating for deer populations that will negatively affect ecosystem health, and thus jeopardize not only MN forests, but deer habitat and long-term (sustainable) deer populations. The science is clear on that. The numbers you throw out there are not sustainable. No credible deer biologist anywhere will support the kind of numbers you are advocating for. Steve Merchant Wildlife Population and Regulation Program Manager Minnesota Department of Natural Resources [email protected] 651-259-5220
I fixed it Northern Minnesota is screwed, the rest of the state will be ok. Sure glad I hunt in a crappy place with no deer and nobody would consider hunting there.
I live in Minnesota and I love my state, eh don't cha know. So I'm going to ask this obviously grade school question, "How did logging bring deer to Northern Minnesota?"
The new growth brought an expansion of the native deer range, not so sure I would say that there were no deer in the northern woods. Still the genie is out of the bottle it is not possible to revert the area back to what it was in the 1800's. There is no point lamenting the way it was naturally and if you live in the area you are part of it never being the same. It's just like a guy who builds a house out in farm country and 10 years later complains about all the people moving into the area.
Some say its true some say its not. As the city population grows in town and suburbs. Its gonna effect deer numbers. Bigger businesses like stores, warehouses,etc effect deer herds. Theres more than just that to affect deer herds. To be honest theres too many politics going around making it possitive or negative. Its a back and fourth cycle again and again with politics getting involved with wildlife and hunting. Theres nothing we can do about it. Thats the MNDNRs problem to deal with the city town and county. All we got to do is keep following the mndnr regulations for the hunting fishing part. The rest I strongly support wildlife. But when officials made a decided vote. Theres nothing we can do about it
Mature hardwoods provide little nutrition for deer. The tree canopy prevents lots of plants that deer like to eat from growing because of a lack of sunlight. Also a mature tree has leaves for the most part that are out of reach for deer. Leaves within reach of a deer (browse, I believe it's called) may be the only thing that gets a deer through a tough winter. Log a patch of woods and the new trees and plants that pop up are within reach for deer for many years to come.
That is part of the problem, most hunters will say they want quality over quantity they say they want more mature deer then procede to shoot the first buck they see. Most of the bucks taken by hunters in Minnesota are 1.5 years old.
You are correct....this why I normally join trophy buck clubs or hunt QDM lands and counties. I would rather see 50 deer a year and have the shot at a good buck then see 200 deer a year and a bunch of scrubs... Now a few years ago I was in a high $$ trophy club that had 130"min on bucks. I killed a 135" and 146" off that land but every year several guys would kill bucks in the 120 range..they either could not field judge or shot without really checking the deer out but all of these guys claimed to be hardcore trophy hunters when they joined.. I think very few states have bad genetics, but if you don't let them get old your not going to have many big bucks.
In defense of the DNR it is next to impossible to plant white cedar and white pine and have the trees grow because the deer will eat them as fast as you plant them. Thing is in Minnesota the DNR is attempting to have healthy forests, that is all well and good but they should be honest when they say what the reason is for health forests , the logging industry in Minnesota is dead no many mills left to purchase bolts from loggers. Makes me shake my head living in Minnesota I go to Menards to buy some T&G pine for a project and each piece of wood has a made in Sweden sticker on it.
logging in GA has slowed way down as well.. in the past if you wanted to get rich you could plant a few 100ac of loblolly pine and in 20 years harvest them , but the market became flooded with cheap softwood form Canada and other places and prices here plummeted..
It's interesting because we have a pretty low density here, though locally we have a ton of does. Despite the low numbers of deer you can plainly see that cedar trees are not making it to maturity. Not only is the browse line stark but the only trees out there are old. The young ones get eaten and killed before they can grow higher than the deer can reach. I'm also not worried about the deer population here since the state has done thousands of acres of "management cuts" for moose. Deer & moose are getting a large browse supply for the next decade or more.
