Anderson: Hunters upset about small herds dispute DNR's deer data

  • Article by: DENNIS ANDERSON , Star Tribune
  • Updated: September 4, 2014 - 9:15 PM

Hunters who aren’t seeing big numbers afield are skeptical about how the agency monitors the herd.

Dwindling whitetail numbers are a source of concern for Brooks Johnson, president of Minnesota Bowhunters Inc.

Photo: Photo courtesy of Brooks Johnson,

CameraStar Tribune photo galleries

Cameraview larger

Archery deer season is a week away, and the gathering of the Legislature is farther off still. But an undercurrent of discontent among some Minnesota deer hunters who claim the Department of Natural Resources has mismanaged the state’s whitetail herd likely will keep the two on a short list of topics discussed in hunting camps this fall.

That’s because a movement is afoot that would have the Legislature order an audit — or some type of review — of the way the DNR oversees the state’s deer.

The effort is led by Brooks Johnson of the Twin Cities, president of Minnesota Bowhunters Inc. ( and one of perhaps thousands of state whitetail hunters who have been disappointed in recent years with the number of deer they’ve seen while afield.

Whether by ineptitude or intention, Johnson says — and in either case, without fully informing hunters — DNR wildlife managers have reduced the number of deer in the state to unacceptable levels, perhaps bowing, as they did, to orchard owners, farmers and others who fear that too many deer might damage their property.

“Minnesota’s deer harvest peaked in 2003 at more than 290,000,’’ Johnson said. “This year it might fall below 120,000 according to the DNR.’’

In Johnson’s view, the significant drop-off occurred while the DNR said publicly it wanted to cut the state’s deer herd only fractionally.

“The reduction has been a lot more than that,’’ Johnson said.

Inspired in part by audits of deer management in recent years in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, Johnson said his intent is to have a neutral third party assess whether the DNR employs well-founded science in its deer work, and isn’t overly influenced by agriculture or other industries, including vehicle insurers worried about car-deer collisions.

Johnson also wonders whether state deer managers have enough money and people to manage whitetails with precision.

On Thursday, Minnesota DNR big game program leader Leslie McInenly defended her agency’s deer management scheme, while acknowledging two points: The DNR, she said, hasn’t done a good job communicating the way it manages deer. And, she said, though the specifics of Minnesota’s deer “modeling’’ method — by which it asks a computer to estimate whitetail populations based on information inputted to it — is different from that of other states, its methodology is nonetheless sound.

“I think the tools we use to monitor deer, including our model, are good tools,’’ McInenly said. “But if someone wants to evaluate them, that’s fine.’’

McInenly, 38, took over the DNR’s top deer-management job in 2012, having previously served as an information officer with the Minnesota Forest Resources Council. She holds undergraduate and graduate degrees in wildlife management, with a focus in graduate school on elk.

The DNR’s current “broad’’ management strategy, McInenly said, is to increase the size of the state’s herd, realizing that in some regions, whitetail numbers have dropped too far.

To help develop revised deer population goals — if not by individual permit areas, then by regions — more public input meetings will be held this winter, she said.

“We’ve heard that there is discontent among hunters about the size of the herd, and that’s why we’ve restarted the goal-setting process with the public,’’ McInenly said

Regardless how the conflict does (or doesn’t) play out in the Legislature, deer management likely will always be particularly imprecise in Minnesota and other northern states. That’s because the DNR calculates the number of antlerless (doe) permits allotted to hunters in a given year before the severity of the following winter can be known.

Thus the herd in some instances (witness the past two years, especially in the northern part of the state) can be subject to a double-whammy: A fairly large hunter harvest followed by a killer winter.

Still, Johnson and others raise good questions.

  • get related content delivered to your inbox

  • manage my email subscriptions


Team Irvin 3 1st Qtr 9:32
Team Carter 0
Miami 96 FINAL
Chicago 84
Oklahoma City 98 FINAL
Cleveland 108
Dallas 104 4th Qtr 0:23
New Orleans 105
Indiana 106 FINAL
Orlando 99
LA Clippers 116 4th Qtr 2:31
Phoenix 100
Minnesota 100 FINAL
Atlanta 112
Detroit 57 3rd Qtr 9:20
Toronto 66
Milwaukee 57 3rd Qtr 9:19
San Antonio 47
Boston 15 1st Qtr 4:04
Golden State 20
Washington 16 1st Qtr 5:24
Denver 15
Houston 8:30 PM
LA Lakers
Team Toews 17 FINAL
Team Foligno 12
South Florida 53 FINAL
Connecticut 66
Boston College 64 FINAL
Georgia Tech 62
Virginia 50 FINAL
Virginia Tech 47
Indiana 70 FINAL
Ohio State 82
Stony Brook 61 FINAL
Binghamton 54
Cincinnati 56 FINAL
UCF 46
Maine 70 FINAL
Hartford 61
Monmouth 64 FINAL
Manhattan 71
Fairfield 67 FINAL
Marist 73
Rowan 48 FINAL
Princeton 96
St Bonaventure 48 FINAL
Rhode Island 53
Duke 77 FINAL
St Johns 68
Saint Peters 69 FINAL
Siena 55
Drake 40 FINAL
Wichita State 74
Vermont 61 FINAL
UMass Lowell 50
Seton Hall 57 FINAL
Butler 77
South Alabama 55
Northern Iowa 54 FINAL
Illinois State 53
Louisville 80 FINAL
Pittsburgh 68
Albany 69
Niagara 64 FINAL
Iona 87
Notre Dame 71 2nd Half 0:01
NC State 71
Belmont 56 2nd Half 7:46
Tennessee St 40
Creighton 33 2nd Half 11:36
Villanova 50
Northwestern 41 1st Half 1:18
Maryland 28
Washington 7:30 PM
Senior-North 34 FINAL
Senior-South 13
Seton Hall 99 FINAL
Georgetown 85
St Johns 69 FINAL
Villanova 81
Arkansas 58 FINAL
Florida 72
Maine 56 FINAL
Vanderbilt 55 FINAL
Alabama 52
Lafayette 60 FINAL
Lehigh 65
SMU 57
Utah 51 FINAL
Washington 63
James Madison 73 FINAL
Coll of Charleston 53
Delaware 56 FINAL
Drexel 61
Hofstra 56 FINAL
William & Mary 57
Hartford 58 FINAL
Albany 82
Binghamton 54 FINAL
Stony Brook 67
Towson 63 FINAL
UNC-Wilmington 71
Wake Forest 80 FINAL
(17) Florida State 110
Georgia Tech 68 FINAL
Virginia 62
(22) Georgia 51 FINAL
(5) Tennessee 59
Drake 79 FINAL
Evansville 62
Iona 80 FINAL
Canisius 62
Fairfield 33 FINAL
Monmouth 59
Northwestern 75 FINAL
Penn State 76
Wisconsin 71 FINAL
Michigan State 77
Ohio State 79 FINAL
Purdue 71
Northern Iowa 57 FINAL
Indiana State 55
Butler 58 FINAL
Xavier 54
Creighton 93 FINAL
Marquette 75
Providence 42 FINAL
DePaul 90
Northeastern 77 FINAL
Elon 80
(2) Connecticut 96 FINAL
Cincinnati 31
Oregon 78 FINAL
Arizona 81
Bradley 46 FINAL
Loyola-Chicago 45
NC State 49 FINAL
(23) Syracuse 66
(7) Maryland 84 FINAL
Indiana 74
Illinois State 35 FINAL
Missouri State 58
Colorado 68 FINAL
Washington St 73
Tulane 45 FINAL
South Florida 64
(14) Kentucky 83 FINAL
Missouri 69
(9) Oregon State 68 FINAL
(13) Arizona State 57
Vermont 63 FINAL
UMass Lowell 72
Iowa State 58 FINAL
(8) Texas 57
Southern Ill 61 FINAL
Wichita State 80
(15) Duke 74 FINAL
(12) North Carolina 67
Miami-Florida 55 FINAL
(4) Louisville 68
(21) Minnesota 61 FINAL
(25) Rutgers 66
California 72 FINAL
(11) Stanford 18 1st Half 12:03
USC 13


question of the day

Poll: How optimistic are you about the 2015 Twins?

Weekly Question





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