MN deer density video

[Dor]

From MBI President Brooks Johnson



"On Sunday, January 12, 2014 11:50 AM, Brooks Johnson <basecampbrooks@gmail.com> wrote:


Feel free to post this video wherever you feel fit.

Share it socially on Facebook, Twitter, email lists etc. Send it to your elected to help make them aware of the issue.

Knowledge is power, and the hunters of MN need to know what led to the low deer numbers in many areas, and that the stakeholder process we can use to fix them is in clay right now.

http://youtu.be/Mkq_LQwMVU8

Brooks Johnson"

[Swampthing]

Thanks, I just sent the email requesting the petition papers.

[ Post made via Android ]

[James]

I saw that petition on the counter of my local archery shop tonight.

[ Post made via iPhone ]

[mnbowmanmark]

Where can I find one to sign?

[ Post made via Android ]

[Schultzy]

Being I'm a member of MBI (guessing you are too Dor) I got this email and a pile of others along with a survey. I've been complaining for the last 5 years that In my zone they need to give out more management tags. It seems things are different elsewhere.

[nater]

Do any of you have a copy of the deer density goals from the 2005 meeting that they show in the video?

[Dor]

Being I'm a member of MBI (guessing you are too Dor) I got this email and a pile of others along with a survey. I've been complaining for the last 5 years that In my zone they need to give out more management tags. It seems things are different elsewhere.

I have been an MBI member through the Rochester Archery Club for forever. The group struggles to get much enrollment historically, but Brooks (founder of DB blinds) took the president job a while back and seems to be moving the needle. What was once a fairly irrelevant group is finally gaining some traction I think. Hopefully, we can attempt to have the same influence as our neighbors to the south from the IBA.

[MN Slick]

I signed the petition in Princeton a week or so ago.

[Rutnstrut]

We need a movement like this in WI, especially with bonus buck coming.

[BassBoysLLP]

I'll sign it. I'd like to hunt MN again.

[ Post made via Android ]

[ihookem]

Hard to believe Minnesota has a 10 deer per sq. mi. in southern Minnesota. If the population is that low you will see the deer numbers explode if you hold back on doe tags. There should be a lot of acorns and browse in the woods for over winter feed. he doesn't mention where in Minnesota there could be 40 - 80 deer per sq. mi. In the big woods 20 should be tops, I think.

[nater]

Hard to believe Minnesota has a 10 deer per sq. mi. in southern Minnesota. If the population is that low you will see the deer numbers explode if you hold back on doe tags. There should be a lot of acorns and browse in the woods for over winter feed. he doesn't mention where in Minnesota there could be 40 - 80 deer per sq. mi. In the big woods 20 should be tops, I think.

I would believe 10 deer per square mile if you're including all of the open ag and prairie ground in the western half of southern Minnesota. Where I live you can drive through square mile after square mile where there isn't enough cover/habitat to support a single deer. After harvest, the density is probably something like 0-5 deer per square mile for 75% of the acreage then 20-30 in the areas around rivers/creeks/larger wetland complexes.

[carl1191]

I haven't hunting Minnesota for several years since moving to Wisconsin, but I do believe that the densities are based of total acreage in the units. Wisconsin gives there density estimates in Deer per Square mile of deer habitat not total acreage. Although I agree that the deer numbers in MN are not what they were in the early 2000's, advocating for 40-80 deer per square mile is ridiculous. This basically shows that this guy has very little understanding of wildlife management and the effects that high deer numbers can have on a habitat and other wildlife living in that same habitat.

Numerous studies show that once you start reaching that 25 deer/square mile of habitat that you start have negative environmental effects. Forest regeneration of valuable species such as Oaks become almost impossible to accomplish. It would be mismanagement of the herd and our natural resources to hold deer numbers at a level, 40-80, that would be unsustainable over the long term. The habitat may be able to support those deer numbers for a short period of time, but the habitat would be degraded over time.

I for one will say that I love seeing a lot of deer when I'm hunting, but we as hunters have to think of what is best over the long term and not just in the here and now.

Let me paint a little scenario for you. Lets say that you have a high deer density such as what Mr. Johnson is advocating for. There will be tremendous competition for the food resources between the deer and there will be less to go around. This will result in less nutrition for deer and probably bucks with decreased antler growth. Here comes old man winter, such as the one we are experiencing, and you have bitter cold coupled with deep snow in a lot of places. Now remember that the deer herd probably didn't enter winter in as good of body condition as they would have if densities were held lower. Less fat reserves and now probably not enough quality browse and food resources to go around. This spells disaster for the herd and you have a large percentage of the deer starving to death and running out of fat reserves before winter is over. This is not some hypothetical situation, it has happened many times in both Wisconsin and Minnesota. Is this really how we should be managing the deer herd?

By holding densities lower, this makes for healthier deer that are able to survive harsh winters better and give birth to healthier fawns. I hope that those that are backing this petition think about this first. More is not always better.

[headgear]

Carl I don't think he was pushing for 40-80 deer per square mile, just stating that is the carrying capacity of much of the state and we have plenty of room to support a larger herd that we have. I can't imagine anyone would want to max out the land with that many deer.

[kenn1320]

20dpsm seems to be a common goal here in Mi. Let's say you have a ratio of 1 buck for every 2 does(likely closer to 1:3). Your looking at 6 bucks and 14 does per sq mile. Let's say you have 10 hunters per sq mile, how can you expect bucks to live past 1.5yrs old? No doubt many areas see way more than 10 hunters per sq mile.

[ Post made via iPhone ]