My Last Words, by Tomas Young

I expect MN will be seeing reduced deer populations for a couple of years after the last couple of winters - and this one shaping up to be more of the same. So there's some good in the new weather.

If you don't like the DNR in MN, you can always try the Texas model: mostly private hunting lands, private management.

Except those professionals also rely on habitat models, long ago and gratefully borrowed from decades of public science they didn't pay for, don't they - 'cause they work better than the earlier stuff.

Or you can thank the DNR in MN for every surviving one of the silly, southern squirrel-goats that infested the northern elk and bison range after those more desirable rifle targets succumbed to - what was it? - oh yeah: habitat destruction, nailed down by rifle overkill, before anyone ever heard the word "habitat".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

ummm yeah whatever...

Typically, I ignore you but this one is just too easy...

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2014/20141016_winteroutlook.html

www.outdoorchannel.com/article.aspx?id=22108

Population dropped (via harvest numbers) before the bad winter of 2013/2014. And as you see from the above quote, the goal has been to drive the population down because of the 'models'. My concern began when deer hunters began chanting "we need to kill wolves, they are destroying the deer herd" all the while celebrating their free doe tags, 2nd doe tag costs $2 (wisconsin) and unlimited tag filling (people taking 4,5, 9, and no kidding 11 deer in one season) because the stoopid population models said they can.

I dont have to move to texas. It's moved up here.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

noaa prognosticators predicted a warmer than normal November
and
They missed the mark.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So?

If your concern is the moronic deer hunters who want a bogus excuse to hunt wolves, why are you slagging the DNR? The DNR is doing its job, which is protecting the natural resources of this region. One of the threats to these resources is moronic deer hunters, who can't even name the trees in their suburban yards let alone recognize a landscape ruined by deer overbrowsing . Say thank you, send them some extra money, and recognize that the habitat models are probably working well, better than anything else has in the history of game management. They are not set up to tell you what you want to hear, is all.

Consider the likely deer kill last winter in MN if the hunting kill had not reduced the population even as little as it did. Or what we would be looking forward to now. And the damage done in the process.

At last take before it came in, a 58% chance of a Nino developing, and dropping, - not exactly a "prediction" failure. They lost a coin flip. http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/ensodisc.html

A side issue with NOAA - their budget and resources have suffered under sequestration on top of the previous Congressional malfunctions. We've seen a slew of equipment and software failures, also chronic and developing shortages of staff and training, and without a return to sanity in Congress we will see a degradation of quality in their forecasts and information services. The Republican Party - the gift that keeps on giving.

 

What a pity. With so much data indicating climate change: Now is the time to invest in research. Enhance older systems and develop new ones to optimize the current state of technology and investigate and measure that which was unattainable just a few years ago..

What the hell does congress do for a living?
Are they any good at it?

 

They do backstabbing, vice and appropriation. And of course they're good at it. If they weren't, they'd hardly be there, would they?

 

If you've been following US politics for a while, and seen the rise of fascism coincident with the vanishing memory of the Great Depression and the receding memory of WWII, you can answer many otherwise puzzling questions regarding modern Congressional (and Executive, and (sic transit gloria 2000 AD) Judicial) behavior.

They are calling themselves Republicans, these days - taking over a legitimate political Party for cover turned out to be a good move - and of course TV was a perfect fit for such endeavors, with its limited and expensive entry to a mass market bypass of reason (one can show moving pictures directly and repetitively to an entire public of ignorant people, if one can pay the freight).

The key observation is that fascist governance as a rule is incompetent. Asking for governance from fascists is like asking for photosynthesis from bovines or cellulose digestion from leonids - it's not in their nature, or among their concerns. None of the governments of Franco, Hitler, Mussolini, Pinochet, Duvalier, the Argentine generals, etc etc etc, improved the on time performance of their respective train systems, for example. The overt Fascists of pre-WWII Europe, or anywhere anywhen else, did not make formerly slipshod trains run well. That's a myth, and it has a source. It's not an accidental myth.

Even halfway decent novelists and other writers, intellectuals in the business of serious observation, mostly get this right (Mario Puzo in the novel "The Godfather" explicitly describes the (unpaved) street level effects of fascist governance on the Sicily of the Godfather's childhood, for example), but mass market moving picture entertainment does not ( the movies based on "The Godfather" reduced that to brief comments on "vendettas" and such, matters of personal character flaw, while dwelling at length on the romance of high-stakes competition and strategy among the rich and powerful and lawless.)

So are they good at it, these (mostly) Republican Congressmen? They are minions. What do you think they are supposed to be doing?

 

Anyone else watching the weather in/of the taklamakan/takla makan for potential precursor to an ssw event?
Assuming that prior ssw events followed warmer temps there then a good north wind pushing that heat up against the kunlun shan and thence up into the stratosphere which then propagated poleward with all due haste, disrupting the polar vortex, and then effecting my weather.
It seems that it is colder than normal there with snow cover----wow

......
this rabble ain't my AuH2O republicans.

 

Nobody is, or ever has been.

They are the mainstream, regular, standard, dominant Republicans visible on the national scene since 1968. They are Nixon Republicans, Dole Republicans, Reagan Republicans, Bush Republicans, Cheney Republicans, McCain Republicans, all the Republicans there are. If you voted for a Republican for a national office any time in the past forty five years, this is what you were voting for.

 

See... this is why I ignore you most of the time. To suggest someone keep supporting a dept which has FAILED (hence the reduced legal harvest/added restrictions) rather than ask the so-called professionals why they fell down on the job just points out your flawed reasoning.

The moronic deer hunters (your term) were correct in one aspect, the deer herd was declining BEFORE the severe winter of 2013/2014. The moronic aspect for the deer hunters was trusting the DNR to apply the science of deer herd management logically. The hunters were not poaching the large deer harvest; it was legally issued licenses.
**Are you reading this sculptor?**

The DNR (as shown in the link I posted) embarked on a quest to reduce the herd based on models... Models which failed in reality. Why failed? Because the land is/was supporting the higher herd numbers with no/limited starvation. And there were not wide spread reports of deer starvation the winter of 13/14.

However, my DNR contacts in wisconsin said the high success rates of the black bear were due (in part) to having plenty to eat in the spring (deer carcass) but thats not to say the deer died of starvation being as deer use the plowed roads for ease of travel when there is deep snow (some of both occurred).

And I am not convinced of over-browsing as a case in most of MN/WI, but then I spend quite a bit of my time in the woods/prairies observing wildlife which reminds me....

Butterfly weed (Asclepias tuberosa) lives many years and I have some plants I have been watching for 7 years now. This past summer deer came and browsed the buds of one of my older plants. I was a bit miffed because this plant is a Karner butterfly support plant (for nectar during second hatch) in my favorite Karner spot. However, resiliency prevailed as this plant produced New Buds which flowered long past the majority of butterfly weed and provided nectar for the late (and prolonged) arrival of the 2nd karner emergence. Point being there really isnt much nature cannot adapt to on its own (nor have something that will benefit from as in dead deer feed bears in the spring).

 

yes

I saw a couple doe in the yard this eve, and 2 young (4 and 6 pt)bucks yesterday. I still have unused tags, and expect to still fill the freezer. As previously mentioned out of 850 tags available in a county of 140,000 people, I have 4 of them. (land owner privilege allows me to get the tags even if over quota when I buy them---but, I usually buy them early so they are within the designed quota)
This year, I ain't seen any large bucks nor large does in the yard. Most seem to be about the size of 1 1/2 year olds or younger.
However, down by the river(about 3-400 yards away), and in a trail across a ravine (about 150 yards away),I have seen the large, deep prints.
And in a nearby field(about a mile away) it is common to see 6-10 does grazing.
I used the leg bones and ribs of the last kill to make venison soup. A few years ago, i made some venison stew, and nobody liked it, but everybody seems to like the soup which is much like the stew but with fewer potatoes. Go figure

Curiously, a couple local towns still hire outside shooters to cull the deer herds "in town" much to the chagrin of local bowhunters who would gladly do the job for free.

I really ain't quite figured out what is going on with the local deer population yet. One day, I think one way, and on another day; another. It is a highly subjective and existentialist analysis.

 

I dont know how much land you have or how many of your neighbors hunt; but I am seeing the same thought process... but I have 4 tags... all those people in MN/WI had tags too.

And you are not seeing big deer (but I have 4 tags).

I dont know how many of your neighbors hunt (in a nearby field I see...)

As I said previously, dont let your DNR destroy your herd regardless of how many tags you have. Let me guess here. Your DNR receives its funding from hunting (among other sources). Follow the money.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Before i started shooting them. I considered deer a nuisance/pest who kept eating my garden vegetables. Some years, they would come right up by the house and eat the foliage of the tomato plants such that the tomato plants spent all of their energy in replacing the leaves and had none left over to produce fruit. On the other side of the house, they would stand on their hind legs and eat every apple within 8 feet of the ground. Protecting the garden was/is a constant battle. I've used 5 inch grid wire remesh to make cages with tops to try and have a reasonable harvest for our invested labor. Since I've been here, I've fed 24 generations of deer from my garden. During garden growing season, when I see deer in the garden, I yell, smack boards together, and throw stuff at them. As the seasons change from growing to harvest to hunting, I continue the harvest from the garden by harvesting the recycled nutrients which have become venison.
Since I've been gardening here, i have planted enough to harvest 308,000-490,000 pounds of produce. The deer have easily harvested(or kept from the harvest) 25% (some years, up to 50%)of that yield. (back of the envelope calculation) The deer have been responsible for reducing my harvest by 122,000 - 244,000 pounds. Figuring a 10:1 ratio, I'm entitled to a minimum of 12,200 pounds of venison, up to 24,000#. Of which, maybe I've harvested 1800 to 2400 pounds.
Alternately if the deer cost me 5,000 pounds of produce per year, I'm entitled to 500 pounds of venison per year, of which, I rarely harvest more than 300 pounds, and, on average, only about 200 pounds.
So, taking the dnr with a grain of salt, I set my own quota based on what I'm feeding and what I see.

My concession: As a landowner, I am entitled via dnr regulations to 4 tags per year even after the non land owners have bought up the available 850 quota tags. By buying my tags early, those tags are counted against the quota reducing the available tags to 846 from the intended 850 which is down this year by 550 from the previous quota of 1400.

For all I know, big deer may still be coming up into the garden in the middle of the night after I am asleep.
Anyway, the deer herd ain't really diminished to the point of concern on this little peninsula on which I live.

Previous to the last cold winter, temperatures had been milder, which allowed disease vectors to move into the northern herds. The northern herds lack the resistance to the diseases like bluetongue, etc..., and have suffered much higher mortality rates than the southern deer.
So last winter's unusual cold may have helped the deer by eradicating the Culicoides who transmit the virus.
While subjecting the herds to cold for which they had not been accustomed.

 

No starvation, just browse lines that look like English estate hedge trimming and lots of carcasses in the spring. Got it.

Which you of course credit to the long overdue and apparently partly successful reduction of the herd you noticed - - right?

In my area that's from an ignorant squeamishness about causing Bambi pain, coupled with a perception that bowhunting doesn't work well - isn't effective enough at killing deer, so the hunting stretches out too long and casts a pall of violence and pain over too much of the year.

That's on Tuesdays and Thursdays. On Wednesdays and Fridays the plague of deer has destroyed their landscaping and their daughter was nearly killed while driving on a city street and something has to be done. Humanely, of course.

 

hmm. I didnt mean to post.

 

Link please. I dont believe you.

 

You posted about the carcasses yourself. You posted noticing diminished hardship evidence in the hard winter we had last, and the herd reduction immediately preceding it. The obvious and striking browse lines I've been driving by for years now, all over central MN, along with the deficit of white pine reproduction and similar consequences of whitetail deer concentration, and you are free to not see them for yourself if you don't want to.

Or you could look up the data used in the habitat models, with which you claim familiarity.

But we have basically different wish lists here. I want these tick-infested diseased goats out of my elk and bison and moose and grouse and turkey habitat, away from my white pines and apple trees and garden plots, and nowhere near my house and fields and domestic animals during hunting season - they draw deer hunters, on average the least wonderful people you will ever meet walking around the countryside. My beef with the DNR is that they have been managing the woods and prairies around here for maximum deer production and deer hunter happiness - farming whitetail deer using the landscape.

 

My comment about bears was in Wisconsin which implemented reduced hunting quota in 2013 so for the winter of 2013/2014 the deer harvest was lower, much lower in the area referenced. Weaker animals tend to fall during the winter regardless of severity. I did indicate the cause of death was a mix due to deer using plowed roads with an assumption of starvation as a factor.

OK so you havent a link for your 'browse lines'. I have a deer trail through my yard that looks like a snowmobile trail. Been there for the 30 years I've lived here and I dont have trouble with browsing deer. Well one took a bite out of one zucchini one year but thats it. Dont bother my tomato's either but I guess they prefer the acorns 30-40 feet away. Deer browse. I accept that. Just like I accept wolves eat deer and Just like I accept eagles eat fish. Doesnt bother me when they do. Thats life and I enjoy it.

White pine have a lot of problems, with Cronartium ribicola, and poor seed quality being foremost. Sorry but I grew up wandering through White pines using the deer trails as my own. White pines do fine when surrounded by white pines.

I showed you links where the DNR said we are reducing herd size based on models. They implemented their models and screwed up the herd so bad we are back to bucks only, or worse yet 6 point or higher (SE MN) and the lowest harvest in 30 years. Its been a while since I looked up their models. But it was obvious then that 5 deer per sq mile was ridiculous (in parts of Pine county for example).

If you dont like the browse habits of deer you are going to be aghast at what bison do to your garden LOL. And you dont think ticks live on moose, elk, bison?? LOL (again). And grouse do not do well in pine forests. Turkeys did not become rare (because they were not expatriated) because of deer.

 

What's screwed up about it? There aren't as many deer as deer hunters prefer - that's a sign of good management.

What a strange series of irrelevancies - you seem to think that had something to do with my posting, as if I had implied that turkeys and grouse live in white pine forests, or that deer coming in drove them out, or that I want the deer out of my garden so I can have bison in it.

Too many deer overbrowse. The DNR has been far too accepting of that, and the current change is long overdue.

Good lord, was that what you didn't believe - you thought I was inventing browse lines? Try searching the keywords "deer browse line"

examples of what you will find: http://www.summitmetroparks.org/NatureInformation/Deer-Management.aspx http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.deeranddeerhunting.com/wp-content/uploads/rubline/mich%2520browse%2520line.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.deeranddeerhunting.com/articles/deer-news/dramatic-browse-line-in-upper-michigan&h=299&w=450&tbnid=eygzBdqqHoGNBM:&zoom=1&docid=LgTIfHIpAA-VXM&ei=HqaDVJmxPNShyASLzoCoCw&tbm=isch&client=safari&ved=0CC0QMygLMAs&iact=rc&uact=3&dur=4714&page=1&start=0&ndsp=49
http://www.friendsofsylvania.org/deer.html
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Photograph_of_Extreme_Browse_Line_-_NARA_-_2128196.jpg&imgrefurl=http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

hotograph_of_Extreme_Browse_Line_-_NARA_-_2128196.jpg&h=936&w=1292&tbnid=WltoV-b6XFyJqM:&zoom=1&docid=CDH5RK0_bBIxWM&ei=4KaDVOefO4S9yQS74IEY&tbm=isch&client=safari&ved=0CEMQMygXMBc&iact=rc&uact=3&dur=1107&page=1&start=0&ndsp=49
and so forth and so on

Here's a small and ordinary Minnesota example of the situation http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/state_forests/sft00052/about.html

In several managed forests or mixed areas in Minnesota, failure of tree reproduction and threats to various flowers etc has prompted investment in deer exclosures - it's either that or get rid of the deer.

 

Except there are wolves (and bear) trying to co-exist in those same places.

Then why did you bring up turkeys and grouse and bison? *btw I have turkeys and deer in my yard. I hear grouse drumming but they are not in my yard.

Yes I figured you were making it up and I quote:

The obvious and striking browse lines I've been driving by for years now, all over central MN, along with the deficit of white pine reproduction and similar consequences of whitetail deer concentration, and you are free to not see them for yourself if you don't want to.

end of quote

Link 1. Summit parks in Ohio. A grouping of 14 parks of various size with no indication as to which park the photo was taken. So surrounding habitat cannot be reviewed.

Link #2
Links to the UP of michigan. (not mn). To discuss your UP pic I would first point out the hayfield bordering that patch of cedars. You dont think the land use is what is affecting the deer browsing habits? Additionally, that is a wintering spot. Quote from UP photo itself:
Browse lines become this prominent over time when deer do not have access to other quality foods in winter, or they are drawn to an area where heavy baiting and feeding is prevalent.

Looking at that photo I wonder many things. For one, was this formerly a fence woods harboring cattle? Its a hayfield in front so there is defiantly a farm nearby. Its also pretty straight cut, may have been the seedlings after a clear cut in the past (without having a true measurement, I would estimate the age of those cedars to be between 40-60 years old based on the size of my own line of red cedar)

Link #3 Sylvania Wilderness area. Plenty of photos from there Not showing a deer yard browse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvania_Wilderness
Photos auto load:
http://www.friendsofsylvania.org/

Link #4 Photo from 1938. chequamegon national forest (logging continuing on this million + acre forest). What is not evident by the photo is what the preceding winters were like.

Photo from your MN example:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Not much browsing damage evident there. So yes, I believe you are making up browse lines all over central MN.

Every single example you post is Deer Wintering Yards other places (with a possible exception in Ohio).

All wintering spots experience browsing. That is Normal. Winter grounds are compressed range areas (generally) and you will see such things but they are not a reflection of the general habitat. Deer migrations are well noted among those of us who spend time outdoors. They migrated through our farm to a location approx 1/2 mile away for the winter. And it was very cool to see.
And where did they migrate to? In the stand of white pines planted by the farmer that owned the property. Beautiful trees that are spreading into the surrounding forest (not the farmers property) despite the deer that winter there. But then, there is plenty of deer browse surrounding that 10 acre planting. Which is also a factor for why I dont have a deer issue in my garden. Plenty of variety for them to choose from.
Why do they like conifers? Its warmer there and the snow depth tends to be lower. Its a preferred winter habitat.

http://video.nationalgeographic.com...-revealed-as-never-before?source=relatedvideo

Anyways, thanks for the links to your source(s) of dismay. What these various sources of info on deer browsing fail to define is what is the goal of the pine plantings (MN) and how is failure defined. Forest management tends to be logging orientated. What may be defined as a failure in that goal does not mean the pines were wiped out, rather their survival rate was lower than needed for a profitable logging in the future.
Example:
In the winter of 2011/2012 a wildlife management area I frequent chopped down a stand of pines that were not mature. Tree height was approx 20-30 feet. I inquired as to why. These trees had been planted in the 50s and were stunted due to soil conditions. I was shocked. I thought they had been planted in the 70s. That former pine patch will be maintained as brush prairie now. An example of poor management. Should never have invested in planting pine on that particular plot.

Now you go 600 feet to the east and the conifers are fine (jack, red and white pine) but you can see an increase in height the further east you go. The really cool thing is the line of mature white pine that border the former driveway into the old homestead, with the younger trees mixed into the forest towards the west, with their varied ages and spreading eastward (now that they have stopped burning so close to the white pine). All whites decended from that original line of white pine. And roughly dated (as to when the farm went from private to public land) from the size of their oldest seedlings (approx 60-80 years old). And they go all the way down to 1 foot tall in that spot.

Interesting article. Note the majority of respondents are forestry (logging) related:

http://mn.gov/frc/documents/council/MFRC_Constraints_Red_Pine_Regen_2007-11-07_Report.pdf

I would direct you to the graph on page 15 where is shows good/varied deer habitat reduces the impact of browsing.
Quotes from above link:
Deer impact depends on a number of factors including size of seedlings, quality and abundance of alternative food, ability of deer to find seedlings, density of seedlings, nutrient content of seedlings and soil, hiding cover, and amount of edge (Reimoser 2003).

Naturally regenerated pine seedlings are often browsed less than nursery grown seedlings (Reimoser and
Gossow 1996; Bergstrom and Bergqvist 1997, 1999; Bergquist 1998), ostensible due to lower nitrogen concentration in their tissues (Close et al. 2004).
However, both naturally regenerated and planted seedlings can have increased nitrogen concentration due to site status. Sites higher in soil nitrogen availability may be more prone to browsing (Côté et al. 2004). This suggests that planting native pines in appropriate native plant communities is an important consideration.