|
|
Avid deer hunters in the Arrowhead Region might not be too happy to hear it but the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources doesn’t seem interested—at this point—in finding ways to increase the whitetail deer population in our region.
In response to the moose population decline, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) proposed keeping lower deer densities in the moose range.
At least that was the gist that came from the DNR Webinar held Wednesday, January 26. The webinar was held ostensibly to discuss northeast Minnesota deer-population goals, but the conversation veered to moose, wolves and even bear and how each species interacts with each other.
Barb Keller, DNR big game program leader, led the webinar with a strong assist from Seth Moore, Ph.D., director of biology and environment for the Grand Portage Band of Lake Superior Chippewa.
The DNR establishes deer population goals every ten years—how much of an increase or decrease is desired in a deer population deer permit area (DPA), with a review set at the five-year mark. Goals are established based on similar habitat, deer populations and deer hunter distribution.
The six deer permit areas in our region (117,118, 126, 130, 131, 133) run from the Canadian border along the North Shore to Two Harbors, up along the eastern side of Virginia and Tower to the Canadian border and back to Grand Portage.
Only DPA 133, which Keller said is mainly outside the moose habitat, is being looked at to increase deer numbers.
Keller said in 2019, the DNR changed its deer population goal-setting process. That process used citizen advisory committees and in-person public meetings. Webinars allow more participants, she said, and encouraged various perspectives.
In northeastern Minnesota, surveys sent out last year by the DNR found most hunters want to see a significant increase in populations, but landowners would like to see the population stay the same.
With only two percent of the state’s whitetail –about 17,000 animals—living in the Arrowhead, hunters say those numbers are too low.
But a known moose killer is brainworm, which deer carry. Deer are unaffected by the brainworm parasite.
So, fewer deer in the moose range minimizes the risk of brainworm or disease spread by deer that harm or kill moose.
As Keller noted, while deer hunters made their desires clear, moose’s health weighs heavily on making any increases to the deer population in our area.
In 2021 hunters took .3 deer per square mile in the region. In 2011 hunters bagged .9 deer per square mile and over the last ten years have averaged .54 deer per square mile.
Meanwhile, the rest of the state’s hunters average 2.5 deer per square mile.
Keller noted, “Compared with other areas of the state, we’re dealing with a very low harvest.”
In setting deer population goals for an area, among other things, the DNR uses data from deer harvest, habitat management and predator management. But of the three management tools, Keller said the DNR primarily relies on hunter harvest to achieve deer population goals. Keller added it is a slow and gradual process, and she views the process as something of a balancing act; how many deer can the habitat support and what are the potential benefits and determinants?
Weather is also a factor in goal setting. Keller said the winters of 2013, 2014 and 2019 were severe and deer populations “dropped quite a bit.”
Following those brutal winters, the DNR cut back on deer hunting permits to help the deer population recover.
Moose came into the discussion about deer populations when it was learned deer carried brain worm, a parasite that kills moose.
With that information, the DNR’s 2010 moose management plan called for no more than ten deer per square mile in moose country to decrease the danger to moose. But that number was just a guess, said Keller, adding the DNR doesn’t know what that number should be.
The state’s moose population tumbled from an estimated 8840 in 2006 to fall to about 3,00 to 4,000, seeming to stabilize in 2013.
In an effort to figure out what was behind the decline of Minnesota’s moose, wildlife researchers/scientists looked at disease, parasites, winter ticks, vegetation, and predation by wolves and bears, as well as climate change.
Working in partnership with the DNR on deer population setting goals is the 1854 Treaty Authority, a cooperation of government to government, Keller said.
The DNR has set deer permit boundaries and aligned them with where the moose live in the recent past.
That doesn’t mean that the DNR won’t manage for deer in those areas; it’s that moose will be preferred in those areas, and deer will be managed at higher levels outside of the moose zones.
Dr. Moore was up next.
Hired in 2005 by the Grand Portage Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, Moore said he had been working on this (moose/deer/wolf/bear) situation for the last 16 years. He added he was a deer hunter and had hunted in areas with few deer for much of his life.
“I know exactly how hard it is to hunt deer in low-density areas,” he said.
But Moore said studies point to deer negatively impacting the moose population and, “To successfully restore moose in the moose core region requires low density of deer.”
Some tough decisions will have to be made to accomplish that, added Moore.
What do moose mean to the Grand Portage Band of Lake Superior Chippewa?
Grand Portage holds a tribal subsistence hunt, which is fundamentally different than a sports hunt and should be considered differently.
In Grand Portage, moose are the primary sustenance species used by the general population, Dr. Moore said.
Moore explained the signing of the 1854 Treaty between the U.S., Grand Portage and Bois Forte bands of Lake Superior Chippewa, ceded hunting, fishing and gathering rights covering 5.5 million acres to the bands into perpetuity.
“And such of them as reside in the territory hereby ceded, shall have the right to hunt and fish therein, until otherwise ordered by the President.”
-Article 11, Treaty with the Chippewa, 1854
Moore has radio-collared moose since 2010, collaring more than 160. He has collared wolves since 2007, collaring between 120 and 130. He began collaring deer in 2016 and bear in 2021, with 18 bears collared.
Research has shown that brainworm is present in 60 to 80 percent of the area’s whitetail, said Dr. Moore.
Since 2010 Dr. Moore has found that brainworm caused 24 percent of moose deaths.
To have a healthy population, moose can have an annual 8-12 percent mortality. However, Dr. Moore has seen that rate as high as 40 percent, and the mortality rate for moose averages today between 22-23 percent annually, which he said is unsustainable.
Dr. Moore and his staff have found predators kill 80 percent of moose calves within the first two weeks of life. This statistic means that if nothing is done to help moose calves, moose have no chance of growing their population in the region.
And while Dr. Moore said black bears from 2013 to 2021 have been found to cause 22 percent of calves’ death, wolves are found to kill even more moose calves.
So, with wolf predation of moose a huge concern, Dr. Moore said some hard decisions will have to be made, and he called for some level of wolf management.
But with wolves protected from hunters and trappers, their numbers are
So, if there is no wolf hunt, how can one lesson the wolf population?
Take more deer out of the food equation.
Deer are a primary source of food for wolves, said Moore. Less deer, fewer wolves.
Dr. Moore showed a graph of radio-collared deer moving to the shore during the winter. But during the spring, they move back some 30-50 miles into the wilderness, and as they move into moose territory, they bring the brain worm parasite with them.
To help hunters keep deer numbers low, Dr. Moore proposed that the DNR consider adding more deer permits, more antlerless permits, offer an extended hunting season and give out additional limited baiting opportunities for hunters in low-density deer ranges.
Grand Portage held a spring bear hunt in 2016, and bears were attracted to bait on the landscape rather than chasing down an angry mother moose to get to her calf, Moore said.
The band held spring and fall bear hunts for two years.
Moore said that the hunt didn’t decimate the bear population, and the moose fared better during the two years of bear hunting on the reservation.
Minnesota held a wolf hunting season for three years, starting 2012. Dr. Moore said moose fared better during those years, with reduced mortality in radio-collared moose, although Grand Portage didn’t participate in the wolf hunt.
Going forward, Dr. Moore said the DNR needs to look at reestablishing a wolf hunt. But, he added, “predator management, deer harvest, forest management, I think we need to manage all three.”
As for the whitetail, the DNR, it seems, will keep to the status quo in the region’s six DPA’s, at least for now.
Public input will continue through February 13, said Keller. Once that’s done, Keller said the DNR would circle back and look at that data, make revisions if necessary and then go from there.
Leave a Reply