Like many, I can be an arm chair wildlife biologist. After spending 40 plus falls in the woods studying and hunting grouse and deer, I think I have a pretty good basis drawing some conclusions when it comes down to habitat, hunting success and population of these critters. Especially in my Mille Lacs area homeland, which compares very well to much of central and north central Minnesota. 

  Unlike the kids of today, deer hunting was a traditional part of growing up when I started. But then, unlike the kids of today, we maybe didn't have  much else to do other than play football in the fall. So recruiting new, young hunters is an ongoing tough game, no doubt.

  That said, I surely don't know how to compete with the new society kids live in nowadays when it comes to creating interest in hunting deer. But I do know that if and when you do get them out in the field for the first few times, they need some kind of action to stay interested. And the trend of deer populations and hunter success falling each year, isn't helping. It's not helping the young hunters stay interested, let alone other generations as well.

  So, I question why out DNR "deer managers" insist on bringing the numbers down even more. Hunting success is down over 50 percent in the past ten years and falling more this year. When you add in all the extra tags compared to 10 -15 years back, the percentages go down even further per tags available. WHY?  I question the need to bring populations down for the health of the herd. Unlike pre-snowmobiling days, when deer would yard up and get trapped in deep snow, eating themselves out of browse, food or lack of it surely can't be sound reasoning. With the exception of '96/'97, winters had little negative effects on peak deer populations of the '90's. And even then, hunting groups begged the DNR to help them feed the deer herds and found deaf ears for the most part. Is it the insurance lobby that is driving this downward deer population trend? That's my guess. And I will agree that in many urban and lakes area heavily populated neighborhoods, car/deer encounters is a major problem. But that said, those areas aren't the majority of central and north central Minnesota.

  Sitting in my arm chair, I think our "deer managers" need to change the trends of the past few years. I think, for the most part, the deer herd can and should be allowed to grow back to where it was in the peak years of the late 80's and '90's. Why not allow the young hunters to at least SEE deer as they become the potential future of the sport?  I ask that only because reality is, with things the way they are, many are not seeing ANY deer. And therefore will not be a part of the pictures in years to come. No doubt about it. Now, there's no proof the high populations of recent years past, starved like their ancestors did before snowmobile trails broke up the deer yards. And if and when a winter like '96 comes along, common sense could prevail and WE could feed them with the help of our "deer managers". Heck, the kids could be a part of the effort! And have a stake in their hunting interests the following fall.

  Sure, my deer killing success continues to be pretty good. My little group of 3 packaged an 8pt.,10pt. and forkhorn as usual. But that's after being a student of the game for a lifetime. So I'm saying, if it's the job of our "deer managers" to create hunters, the hunters need more deer! Is more deer the total answer? Surely not! But what, really, can it hurt? Contact Steve at 651-270-3383 or sf1954@embarqmail.com