Anderson: In some ways, deer population fix is up to hunters

  • Article by: DENNIS ANDERSON , Star Tribune
  • Updated: March 21, 2014 - 8:45 AM

DNR’s effort to fix the deer population requires understanding and monitoring.

hide

That walk into the woods is easy. Hunters who want to see the deer population grow have other jobs, too.

Photo: KYNDELL HARKNESS • kyndell.harkness@startribune.com,

CameraStar Tribune photo galleries

Cameraview larger

– Described as a “listening session,’’ a gathering in this central Minnesota town Wednesday evening attracted some 60 deer hunters. At issue was the perception among most in attendance, voiced repeatedly, that too few deer inhabit the surrounding region, a complaint shared in many areas statewide. Doing the listening, and taking notes, were Department of Natural Resources wildlife officials.

It’s no easy task, managing deer to socially acceptable population levels, which the DNR attempts to do. For starters, what constitutes such levels is not easily agreed upon. Hunters want a lot of deer. Orchard growers and others in agriculture generally want fewer. In between are homeowners with at-risk shrubbery, car drivers who fear whitetail collisions at freeway speeds, and ecology buffs who believe too many deer inhibit forest plant diversity.

Still, in many parts of the state there are too few deer, in part because weather bets DNR wildlife managers placed a few years back boomeranged. Bad as last winter was, particularly for northern whitetails, this winter is worse. In advance of these, arguably because of bad luck, the DNR allowed hunters to kill too many deer in some parts of the state.

The result, as Dave Sapletal of Brainerd put it Wednesday evening: “The deer are truly down.’’

Added Ron Carlson of Pillager, Minn.: “The deer are down so far I didn’t even hunt my home area.’’

Hearing this, and more, from the frustrated hunters was a phalanx of DNR officials, headed by wildlife section chief Paul Telander. Also present were DNR research boss (and former big game coordinator) Lou Cornicelli, as well as big game program leader Leslie McInenly and wildlife programs manager Steve Merchant, among others.

Organized by the Minnesota Deer Hunters Association, the Brainerd meeting, as well as one held Thursday evening in Cambridge and four others to be held in coming days (none in the Twin Cities), was intended to allow hunters to vent. The underlying assumption — hope — was that the DNR would take the hunters’ concerns to heart and do what’s required to rebuild the state’s whitetail herd.

“I’ve hunted 62 years,’’ said Dave Sapletal of Brainerd, “and in the last three or four years, the bucks just aren’t there. Even in Camp Ripley. I spent 17 hours in a stand there last fall and I didn’t see a single deer.’’

The DNR has begun a multi-year process to recalibrate desired whitetail population levels in various regions of the state. Aiding the undertaking are citizen panels intended to represent a cross-section of affected groups, among them hunters and farmers. The intent is to reach consensus about appropriate whitetail levels in given areas, which, subsequently, the DNR will attempt to achieve by employing various hunter harvest strategies.

Hunters believe they were underrepresented a few years back on similar advisory panels and, as a result, whitetail population goals generally were set too low. The DNR disputes this. But the DNR does not dispute that in many parts of the state, if not most, the agency doesn’t manage deer for maximum density — the land’s “carrying capacity’’ — but instead to levels it believes most everyone can live with, hunter or not.

Given that hunters pay the bills for deer management, more than a few feel gypped by a process that incorporates so completely the interests of other parties, most of whom are wildlife-conservation freeloaders.

Two points:

• If hunters want to ensure that deer in their area and/or statewide are managed at sufficiently high levels, they must do more than come to the odd meeting and complain. Instead, they need to stay engaged in the process of setting population goals to ensure their interests are satisfactorily included in the outcomes. There’s a significant difference between managing for 15 deer per square mile and 25 per square mile, for example, and if the DNR chooses the lower number, it should have to explain why.

• That said, hunters must acknowledge that deer population management includes a lot of guesswork. Harvest strategies are based on information gathered months or even a year earlier. Weather also is a big variable. As is hunter effort. And predators. So hitting a harvest mark, or even a harvest range, isn’t going to happen every year, and DNR deer managers shouldn’t be held to such an impossible standard.

Hunters instead must stay intimately engaged on the front end of the ongoing whitetail population goal-setting process, not only through the advisory panels but afterward, when population levels are announced.

It’s then that hunters should require the DNR to justify its goal numbers and, as necessary, seek their adjustment.

Editor’s note: More on upcoming listening sessions and the goal-setting process is online at www.dnr.state.mn.us/mammals/deer/mgmt.html.

  • get related content delivered to your inbox

  • manage my email subscriptions

ADVERTISEMENT

New England 2/1/15 5:30 PM
Seattle
Detroit 69 FINAL
Philadelphia 89
Portland 94 FINAL
Cleveland 99
Sacramento 102 FINAL
Toronto 119
Boston 98 FINAL
Minnesota 110
Dallas 94 FINAL
Houston 99
Denver 93 FINAL
New Orleans 85
Brooklyn 102 FINAL
Atlanta 113
Oklahoma City 92 FINAL
New York 100
Charlotte 86 FINAL
San Antonio 95
LA Clippers 94 FINAL
Utah 89
Washington 98 FINAL
Phoenix 106
Toronto 1 FINAL(SO)
New Jersey 2
Pittsburgh 0 FINAL
Washington 4
Chicago 3 FINAL
Los Angeles 4
Temple 86 FINAL
UCF 62
Winthrop 75 FINAL
Coastal Carolina 68
Lafayette 59 FINAL
Colgate 54
Northeastern 60 FINAL
Drexel 65
Wake Forest 76 FINAL
Florida State 82
Rhode Island 64 FINAL
Fordham 63
Delaware 82 FINAL
James Madison 88
South Carolina 58 FINAL
LSU 64
New Hampshire 63 FINAL
Maine 58
Seton Hall 80 FINAL
Marquette 70
Binghamton 68 FINAL
UMBC 56
American Univ 54 FINAL
Navy 64
Elon 65 FINAL
UNC-Wilmington 82
Wright State 76 FINAL
Oakland 84
Minnesota 58 FINAL
Penn State 63
Duquesne 55 FINAL
Richmond 86
SMU 63 FINAL
South Florida 52
Hartford 66 FINAL
Stony Brook 72
Albany 47 FINAL
Vermont 44
Hofstra 79 FINAL
William & Mary 100
UNC-Asheville 74 FINAL
Longwood 64
Radford 84 FINAL
Char Southern 77
Holy Cross 0 Postponed
Loyola-Maryland 0
Duke 73 FINAL
Notre Dame 77
Texas Tech 36 FINAL
Oklahoma 81
Oregon State 55 FINAL
Arizona State 73
Morehead State 82 FINAL
Austin Peay 69
Drake 69 FINAL
Bradley 57
Lehigh 62 FINAL
Bucknell 68
Rice 48 FINAL
Houston 59
Missouri State 57 FINAL
Illinois State 67
Loyola-Chicago 47 FINAL
Wichita State 58
Nebraska Omaha 64 FINAL
South Dakota St 86
Northern Iowa 59 FINAL
Southern Ill 52
Louisville 81 FINAL
Boston College 72
St Johns 74 FINAL
Creighton 77
East Carolina 58 FINAL
Memphis 70
Georgia Tech 70 FINAL
Miami-Florida 50
Miss State 73 FINAL
Ole Miss 79
Clemson 68 FINAL
NC State 57
Indiana 67 FINAL
Purdue 83
Kansas 64 FINAL
TCU 61
Oregon 56 FINAL
Arizona 90
Air Force 66 FINAL
San Jose St 52
Stanford 84 FINAL
Washington 74
Rider 56 FINAL
Siena 49
Dayton 76 FINAL
Richmond 62
Eastern Kentucky 53 FINAL
Jacksonville St 73
Saint Josephs 0 Postponed
Saint Louis 0
UMBC 71 FINAL
Binghamton 55
Akron 60 FINAL
Ohio U 72
Ball State 72 FINAL
Miami-Ohio 55
Memphis 56 FINAL
Cincinnati 44
East Carolina 32 FINAL
(2) Connecticut 87
Murray State 59 FINAL
Eastern Illinois 75
Kent State 63 FINAL
Central Michigan 65
UT Martin 64 FINAL
Tennessee St 58
Eastern Michigan 56 FINAL
Western Mich 83
Bucknell 61 FINAL
Lehigh 76
Indiana 57 FINAL
Michigan State 72
Colgate 56 FINAL
Lafayette 58
Fordham 66 FINAL
Davidson 45
Duquesne 76 FINAL
St Bonaventure 64
George Mason 66 FINAL
VA Commonwealth 70
Detroit 59 FINAL
Youngstown St 58
Army 0 Postponed
Boston U 0
Loyola-Maryland 0 Postponed
Holy Cross 0
SMU 58 FINAL
Tulsa 74
Oklahoma St 54 FINAL
Kansas State 52
West Virginia 57 FINAL
Texas Tech 73
Denver 56 FINAL
South Dakota 82
Northwestern St 46 FINAL
Central Arkansas 63
Austin Peay 67 FINAL
SIU-Edwardsville 87
Kansas 61 FINAL
Iowa State 56
Bowling Green 50 FINAL
Northern Ill 67
Penn State 64 FINAL
Minnesota 75
San Jose St 80 FINAL
Air Force 83
Boise State 82 FINAL
Colorado State 83
Utah State 51 FINAL
Wyoming 86
San Diego State 50 FINAL
Fresno State 57
Nevada 52 FINAL
UNLV 75

ADVERTISEMENT

question of the day

Poll: What chance does the Wild have of making the playoffs?

Weekly Question

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

 
Close