Hunters and deer

With the regular firearms deer season fast approaching, we can expect to hear more grousing from hunters about the disappointing deer numbers in our area. And, naturally, many fingers will point to wolves as the cause of declining hunter success.
But as University of Minnesota researcher Dr. Tom Gable suggested during an impressive presentation at the State Theater in Ely last week, hunters would do better to file their complaints with the Department of Natural Resources’ Division of Forestry.
As we have previously reported in these pages, the management of our public forests is undoubtedly a factor in the struggles of white-tailed deer.
While winter severity is the primary driver of deer populations, a point which Gable made with plentiful data in support, the ability of deer to survive harsh winters is either helped or hindered by the decisions made by the state’s foresters.
That isn’t just Gable’s opinion. For the past several years, DNR wildlife managers, both working and retired, have been making a strong case for changes in the way that the DNR manages state forest lands. For too long, they’ve argued, DNR foresters have been clearcutting critical habitat that deer rely upon for winter cover.
As Gable noted, mile after mile of young and middle-aged aspen provide little benefit to deer. Unfortunately, that’s what dominates large portions of the northern Minnesota landscape, as Gable demonstrated through aerial images during his presentation.
When the snow is deep and temperatures drop, deer invariably head to dense conifers, which provide protection from cold winds and hold snow in their branches, making it easier for deer to move about underneath, either to feed or escape predators.
It’s no secret to residents of our region that deer use these areas as winter “yards,” rarely leaving them during the depths of winter. But as those deer yards are cut by foresters focused only on cordage, that key habitat is lost, leaving deer more vulnerable to winter conditions. And as the loss of yards pushes deer to concentrate into what little good habitat remains, they become easier for predators to find and catch. The loss of this habitat, in other words, is a double whammy for deer.
Deer hunters do their cause no justice when they focus their frustrations on wolves. As Gable documented thoroughly, with years of data from both his and other studies, wolf numbers are not a major determinant of deer populations. The fact that hunters in our region had some of the best hunting of their lifetimes 15-20 years ago, at a time when wolf numbers were at least as high as today, points to the obvious. Yes, wolves eat deer, but deer can easily sustain high populations even in the face of steady wolf predation.
That’s particularly true when deer have access to plenty of good winter cover. That cover is disappearing, yet hunters would rather focus on wolves than their local foresters who are clearly doing them no favors.
The problem is, the DNR has made policy decisions in recent years that are directly harming deer and deer hunters. Increasing timber harvest on state lands, and shortening rotations between harvests, is generating an aspen monoculture that is nearly worthless to deer. While deer do benefit from logging, that’s only true for a few years after harvest. Five years in, these stands of young aspen have grown well beyond the reach of deer and those acres turn to deer deserts for decades. Cut every 35-45 years, these areas never have the opportunity to develop the more diverse structure and conifer understory found in older forests in our region.
Under the DNR’s current management regime, these forests are all but lost as deer habitat, save for a few years after each harvest.
When it comes to DNR management, deer hunters do have a real voice, and it’s one they could use effectively if they focused on the real issues affecting deer numbers and hunter success. The DNR is a highly political agency that is sensitive to pressure from a wide range of interest groups. The DNR’s 2018 change in forest management, to emphasize harvest levels over wildlife habitat, was done at the behest of the wood products sector.
The effects of that change are beginning to be felt by deer hunters.
If they were organized and began pushing for changes in forest management to protect areas of conifer cover, they could make a positive difference for northern Minnesota’s deer population. Simply grousing about wolves is a waste of everyone’s time.