White-tailed Deer Hunting

This category is for blog posts about deer hunting.

Delisting of Grey Wolves in Minnesota

Dr. Ken Nordberg Leave a comment

The following is a copy of a letter I received from Minnesota’s U.S, Senator, Amy Klobuchar in response to a request I sent to her, asking her not to oppose a bill that would delist Minnesota’s grey wolves from the Endangered Species list and explaining why. The amount of information a U. S. Senator must know to preform her duties is incredible, but as you can see from this letter, Senator Klobuchar is even well versed on this matter. It is good to know Minnesota’s enormous number of outdoor enthusiasts are well represented in Washington, D.C.

_______________________

April 11, 2016

Dear Dr. Nordberg:

Thank you for contacting me about Minnesota’s gray wolf population. I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this important issue.

As required by the Endangered Species Act, in 1978 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service established a population goal of 1,250 to 1,400 wolves for the state of Minnesota to ensure the population’s long-term survival. According to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the most recent estimates of Minnesota’s wolf population indicate that there are approximately 2,423 wolves in the state.

This increase in the wolf population provides strong evidence that the Endangered Species Act has been successful and the gray wolf should be delisted. The Endangered Species Act is a tool that has helped bring numerous species back from the brink of extinction by protecting them until they can maintain a stable and viable population. While I support the Endangered Species Act, I do not believe its provisions and regulations are suited for the permanent protection of a recovering species.

That is why I sent a letter in 2010 to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service requesting a scientific review of Minnesota’s wolf population to determine if a new designation is needed, and if appropriate, to remove the wolf from the list of endangered species. On January 27, 2012, gray wolves in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan were removed from the list of endangered and threatened species and with the support of wildlife groups, the federal government transferred responsibility for wolf management to the states and tribes.

After the federal decision was made, a number of groups chose not to litigate this matter any further in court. But some groups did and as a result the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia reversed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 2012 delisting and limited the ability of the State of Minnesota to manage the wolf population. The litigation and the resulting decision have created uncertainty for many in our state and it has interrupted management of the species by state and federal wildlife agencies. I believe the decision should be reversed.

I have urged the Interior Department to take action to ensure that the State of Minnesota can continue to successfully manage its gray wolf population. I am confident that the Endangered Species Act has served its purpose in protecting the gray wolf and that the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources is capable of managing the population. That’s why on March 28, 2015 the National Wildlife Federation made official its support for delisting the gray wolf from the Endangered Species Act in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan with management authority returning to those states. As we continue to see the number of wolves we are seeing today, I will continue to advocate for delisting.

Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me. I continue to be humbled to be your Senator, and one of the most important parts of my job is listening to the people of Minnesota.  I am here in our nation’s capital to do the public’s business. I hope you will contact me again about matters of concern to you.

Sincerely,

Amy Klobuchar

United States Senator

Letter to Minnesota Senators concerning the Wolf Bill

Dr. Ken Nordberg Leave a comment

Dear Senator Klobuchar,

My name is Dr. Ken Nordberg. I am 81 years old and I’ve been a Minnesota deer hunter 71 of those years. After retiring from Dentistry in 1980, I became an outdoor writer. I am well known for my hunting-related studies of white-tailed deer (plus black bears and wolves) in Minnesota and elsewhere in the U.S. since 1970. My primary whitetail study area since 1990 is located in northern St. Louis County. I have written more than 700 magazine articles and published thirteen books based on my studies since 1988 and I am about to publish two more books (I once sat beside your father at a book signing). I’ve been a feature writer, writing about whitetails and whitetail hunting for Midwest Outdoor Magazine throughout the past 25 years.

My reason for writing to you is to ask you to not oppose the delisting of Minnesota’s grey wolves from the Endangered Species List. Decades of opposition to delisting wolves in the past on the premise “wolves within specific geographic regions should not be delisted when the greater population is still endangered” has allowed grey wolves in northeastern Minnesota to become overabundant to the extent that what was once one the best regions in Minnesota to hunt white-tailed deer (with populations up the 22 deer per square-mile) has become a state region least populated by whitetails. In some areas in the Arrowhead there are now as few as 2–4 deer per square-mile, according to recent MDNR surveys.

Though brain worms, carried by unaffected deer, are blamed by our MDNR for the current decline of moose in northeastern Minnesota (moose are declining everywhere in North America even where whitetails are not found), recent studies have proven grey wolves kill more of our moose than any other cause. Moreover, because young wolves can no longer find areas large enough to establish new home (hunting) ranges in northeastern Minnesota, they are now seeking ranges southward into urban and farm areas beyond the Twin Cities and eastward across Wisconsin into Upper Michigan. Young wolves cannot find new ranges across the border in adjacent Ontario because wolf numbers there are now at a historic high. The truth of the old axiom, “where predator numbers are high, numbers of their primary prey will be low and where predator numbers are low, numbers of the primary prey will be high,” couldn’t be better proven than by current populations of wolves, deer and moose in northeastern Minnesota.

Whatever can be done to try to halt the decline of moose and restore numbers of deer in our Arrowhead Region is seriously handicapped by our MDNR’s inability to control wolf numbers. To allow this dilemma to continue longer would certainly have serious consequences far into the future.

Again, please do not oppose the delisting of Minnesota grey wolves.

Sincerely,

Dr. Ken Nordberg

On Favoring Moose over Whitetails in Northeastern Minnesota

Dr. Ken Nordberg Leave a comment

On March 3, 2016, Minnesota’s Department of Natural Resources wildlife managers announced, “A realignment of a handful of permit areas in northeastern Minnesota won’t bring with it further deer population reductions.”

Hooray!

During discussions concerning what to do to halt the decline of moose numbers in northeastern Minnesota, it has often been said our whitetails are recent invaders of moose ranges in our state. I disagree. Fossil discoveries reveal ancestors of our whitetails existed in North America 3 million years ago and Asian moose did not migrate across the connecting land mass between Siberia and Alaska to our continent until 35,500 years ago. There were an estimated 30 million whitetails living on our continent in the 1500s (well before Europeans began to settle in North American), mainly east of the Mississippi River and north into Canada. Obviously, North American whitetails have lived in northeastern Minnesota for hundreds of years, possibly even thousands of years.

Beginning in the late 1880s, our rapidly growing American human population created an insatiable demand for Minnesota’s white pine lumber. By 1900 more than two-billion feet of America’s white pine had been cut, mostly by our country’s four largest mills, three of them in Minnesota. The demand for our white pine lumber continued until 1929 when the world’s largest lumber mill located in the town of Virginia in northeastern Minnesota finally ran out of white pines.

All this logging, of course, created ideal habitat for whitetails and moose. Capable of doubling in numbers annually, whitetails soon dominated northeastern Minnesota’s newly emerging spruce, balsam, white cedar and aspen forests.

Northeastern Minnesota became my personal favorite area for hunting and fishing in 1950. Back then, whitetails were routinely seen in great numbers all along the Gunflint Trail and connecting backwoods roads from Grand Marais to the Canadian Border. Resorts in this area such as Clearwater Lodge enjoyed a thriving business during November deer hunting seasons, their walls then displaying photos of large groups of smiling hunters kneeling before 15–20 deer. Deer hunters were even entertained with live polka music in the spacious Clearwater Lodge dining room at that time. Similarly, live music was also a annual feature at Bundy’s Wayside Inn during deer seasons, located halfway between Orr and Crane Lake at the opposite end of northeastern Minnesota’s Arrowhead Region. Between Duluth and International Falls, whitetails were then especially plentiful, up to 22 deer per square-mile not uncommon.

Unfortunately, a series of severe winters in the mid-1960s practically wiped out whitetails in the two eastern-most counties of northeastern Minnesota, Lake and Cook Counties, and substantially reduced whitetails in St. Louis County as well. North Shore and Gunflint Lake citizens can be credited with providing food that saved the few surviving deer that finally begin repopulating Lake and Cook counties until 1972, after which newly protected grey wolves began to increase in numbers. Since then, wolves and severe winters have kept whitetails from recovering to more than half of their original numbers. Recent MDNR surveys reveal there as few as 2–4 deer per square-mile in parts of this region today. From being one of Minnesota’s very finest deer hunting regions, northeastern Minnesota east of Highway 53 between Duluth and International Falls has become a region of our state least populated by whitetails. And sadly, because late-comer moose are not yet fully adapted to living with brain worms like our resident whitetails and because cold country moose may even be discovered as unfortunate victims, like arctic polar bears, of human-induced climate change, caring for declining moose in this region has taken precedence over sound management of whitetails. Whereas a deer numbers will now be allowed in increase in a few counties west of Highway 53, the newly designated moose management area, virtually the entire area east of Highway 53, will be managed for current (low) numbers of deer.

Fortunately, remaining whitetails inhabiting this region today are tough and amazingly adaptable. They have survived despite more than four decades of year-round hunting by overwhelming numbers of grey wolves protected by the Endangered Species Act and misinformed federal judges. They have survived despite potentially fatal infestations of brain worms and other parasites. They have survived despite winters of minus-40-degree temperatures and hip-deep snow. They have survived despite well-intentioned management by humans. Decades after all is said and done, there is therefore no doubt in my mind these especially elusive and resilient deer will still be living in my favorite hunting area in northeastern Minnesota.

Attention Minnesota Deer Hunters

Dr. Ken Nordberg Leave a comment

Attention MN deer hunters: March 13th is the deadline for telling our MDNR what you think about its plan to reduce deer numbers in NE Minnesota in an attempt to stop the current decline of moose in that region.

Our whitetails are being blamed for this decline because they are not affected by brain worms and are thus considered “carriers” of brain worms that are known to kill moose (not all of them). Brain worms have been passed back and forth between whitetails and moose via certain slugs and snails throughout the highs and lows of moose populations in recent decades and likely ever since moose migrated from Asia to North America 13,500 years ago. Moose researchers almost everywhere in North America today believe the current continent-wide decline of moose has multiple causes, including other parasites such as liver flukes and winter ticks, poor health related to insufficient moose habitat, climate change and wolf depredation. Underneath it all, especially following climate change, moose may simply be poorly adapted to living in North America today. Actually, the long-protected, increasingly-abundant gray wolves of northeastern Minnesota (now at a historic high just across the border in Ontario) kill more moose than anything else. Logically, our overabundant wolves have much if not most to do with low and declining numbers of remaining deer (which are unaffected by brain worms) and moose in the Arrowhead Region. No one disputes the fact that when and where wolf numbers are high, numbers of their primary prey, deer and moose, can be expected to be low and when wolf numbers are low, numbers of their primary prey can be expected to be high. Hunting by humans has had little effect in this region, as few as one deer taken per ten square-miles in recent years.

What our declining moose need most today is a drastic reduction of Minnesota wolves (seemingly impossible under current circumstances), an increase in numbers of easier-to-catch deer to reduce moose depredation by wolves and more improved moose habitat (including more of what moose eat to survive winters such as second-growth quaking aspens), long scarce in and around the heart of Minnesota’s Moose Management Area, the Boundary Waters Canoe Area.

Our DNR plans to reduce numbers of whitetails in northeastern Minnesota’s Moose Management area (almost all of Arrowhead Region east of a line from Duluth to International Falls), to reduce the passage of the larval form of brain worms from deer to moose. Deer numbers in this region have never recovered from massive losses due to severe winters in the 1960s, after wolves became protected by the Endangered Species Act in 1972, and recent severe winters have reduced deer numbers there again, an estimated 2–4 deer per square-mile now not uncommon in this region according to recent DNR surveys. Logically, this has forced wolves to increase their dependence on moose meat.

If deer numbers are further reduced in this region, the grey wolves will become almost wholly dependent on moose meat, exacerbating the moose decline. Our DNR’s plan will not only adversely affect moose and deer numbers in what was once one of Minnesota’s finest whitetail hunting regions, but adversely affect wolves as well, likely forcing them to migrate south into urban and farm regions in search of food throughout Minnesota and east into Wisconsin and Upper Michigan as well, which is already happening. Our DNR is asking for public input on this moose plan. Please inform our DNR you do not approve of it before the deadline of March 13th. Your input can have great influence on the outcome. Call 651-296-6157 or 1-888-MINNDNR, send an email to info.dnr@state.mn.us or write to DNR Information Center, 500 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, MN 55155-4040. Please do it today!

Thank you,

Dr. Ken Nordberg

Minnesota’s New Moose Research & Management Plan

Dr. Ken Nordberg Leave a comment

After studying the Minnesota Moose Research and Management Plan just released by our Department of Natural Resources, I believe this plan to bring a halt to the vexing problem of dwindling moose numbers in our state is as well-conceived and as scientifically sound as it can be under current circumstances. What I mean by “under current circumstances” is this: based wholly on what I have annually discovered in one small portion of Minnesota’s designated moose management area since 1990, I believe any plan that does not take into account the enormous impact our overabundant, long-unmanaged grey wolves have been having on moose and deer is terribly handicapped. I realize our DNR is currently powerless to manage our wolves, protected by federal judges and the Endangered Species Act. Nonetheless I can’t help but fear reducing deer numbers in the moose management area may not only force wolves to kill greater numbers of moose, exacerbating their demise, but force wolves to kill a greater percentage of remaining deer as well. This wouldn’t be good for moose, deer or wolves far into the future.

However, I also understand the urgency to proceed with this plan. Without trying to save our moose and without the funded research necessary to succeed, we may loose them all and never know why.

Minnesota Moose Research and Management Plan

DNR’s Main Page on Moose (Has a link to the new management plan.)

DNR’s Moose Hunting Page  (Has a link to the new management plan.)

 

Attention Minnesota Deer Hunters

Dr. Ken Nordberg Leave a comment

Attention Minnesota Deer Hunters,

Moose numbers are declining throughout North America, even in Alaska (where there are no whitetail deer). Though grey wolves are proven to responsible for the demise of more moose annually than anything else, our Minnesota DNR has decided brain worms are the primary culprit. Because Minnesota’s white-tailed deer are also afflicted by brain worms but do not die as a result, they are now considered “carriers” and are being blamed for the decline of our moose. Moose, themselves, are carriers.

Other reasons for this decline have been suggested by researchers all across the U.S. and Canada, including liver flukes, winter ticks, bacterial infections, poor health (perhaps wrought by unsuitable habitat) and climate change. MDNR (Minnesota DNR) researchers recently concluded moose numbers will not improve by reducing deer numbers. Another recent study revealed reducing deer numbers does not improve moose numbers where whitetail populations are less than 15 per square-mile. Whitetail numbers do not exceed 15 per square-mile in northeastern Minnesota. Nonetheless, our MDNR plans to reduce deer numbers, already very low in northeastern Minnesota due to recent severe winters, within a newly designated moose range.

What, then, will become the primary food of the unmanaged, overabundant grey wolves of that region, still ironically considered “threatened” but at a historic high just across the border in Ontario? What else? Moose meat, of course.

Logically, therefore, forsaking whitetails for this cause is only going to accelerate the demise of Minnesota’s remaining moose.

Minnesota’s Department of Natural Resources is currently asking citizen’s to voice their opinion about this plan. Deer hunters, please do it soon. Email: info.dnr@mn.state.us or write to: Moose Plan, MDNR Central Office, 500 Lafayette Rd., MN 55155-4040

Check for the latest Minnesota DNR press releases at:
News releases

Thank you,
Dr. Ken Nordberg

Key words: moose, whitetails, Minnesota, MN, OnlyInMN, brain worms, grey wolves, timberwolves.

Letter to Michael Nelson, Minnesota State Representative

Dr. Ken Nordberg Leave a comment

Dear Mike,

Some statements made by our MDNR Commissioner (I wasn’t paying attention at first but I believe it was Commissioner Landwehr) in a recent newscast were so incredible that I felt obliged to do something about it. I sent a report to the MDNR that explains what has been happening to whitetail, wolf and moose numbers in my St. Louis County Whitetail Study area since 1990 and further explained why the commissioner’s plan for increasing moose numbers would be a terrible mistake.

The commissioner mentioned reducing deer numbers by half in northeast Minnesota to restore our dwindling moose population to, among other things, save our reputation as a state famous for “moose-watching.”  He also mentioned moose numbers are fine on Isle Royal where there are no deer, the implication being obvious. This was a startling revelation.

As you know, I am a writer well known for my hunting-related studies of whitetails (plus black bears and wolves) in Minnesota and elsewhere in the U.S. since 1970. I have published thirteen books based on my studies since 1988 and I am about to publish two more. I have written more than 700 articles about whitetails and whitetail hunting for various outdoor magazines since 1980 and I’ve been a feature writer, writing about whitetails and whitetail hunting, for MidWest Outdoor Magazine throughout the past 25 years. My primary whitetail study area since 1990 is located in St. Louis County.

Knowing you are an avid deer hunter and being my State Representative, I am sending a copy of my report to you for two reasons: 1) I want someone in our state government to understand why the commissioners plan is a mistake and 2) if our state government has any influence over what our DNR proposes to do, it would be good if this plan could somehow be discouraged by representatives in our state government (if for no other reason than it needs more study). I sincerely hope what you and others learn from my report will help influence those who favor reducing deer herds in the Arrowhead to change their minds.

Thank you,

Dr. Ken Nordberg

Mineral Blocks, Trophy Bucks, Record Book Whitetails

Dr. Ken Nordberg Leave a comment

The four-month antler-growing season has begun. To minimize injury to sensitive, blood-rich velvet which can dramatically arrest antler development, most mature bucks will spend the summer like hermits, feeding and watering close to their secluded bedding areas. According to a study I did in my first Minnesota whitetail study area between 1970 and 1989, placing 50-pound cattle-type mineral blocks (minerals with traces of salt rather than salt with traces of minerals) beneath trees on dry ground close to where you currently find fresh tracks 3.5–4 inches in length and/or fresh droppings 0.75–1 inch in length (made by bucks 3–6 years of age), you can increase the mass (the amount of water their antlers displace) of their antlers by 10–20%, turning some “trophy” bucks into “record book” bucks. Many yearling bucks destined to be “spikes” due to of a lack of calcium and other minerals in their diets will become “forkies” or better. Moreover, though perhaps not needed where you hunt, this will also improve the number of healthy fawns still alive in your hunting area next fall, having grown up on calcium-rich milk. Wherever you place mineral blocks, antlerless whitetails will always find them as well. After the end of August when antler growth is complete and fawns have been weaned, mineral blocks are generally ignored by whitetails, meaning, they will not make older bucks more vulnerable to hunting next fall.

Thank you,

Doc

Buck Depositing Tarsal Musk on Ground Scrape

Dr. Ken Nordberg Leave a comment

With all four hooves on its ground scrape, this buck is pressing its tufted tarsal glands together (located on inner surfaces of its hind legs) to squeeze out musk. The buck is also urinating over the surfaces of these glands to carry the musk to the ground. Some bucks do what appears to be a hula dance while doing this to squeeze additional musk from their tarsal glands. Dominant bucks also rub acrid scalp musk oozing from glands slightly below the bases of their antlers on overhanging branches. The primary purpose of this is to mark its breeding range with easily seen, easily smelled markers that warn other bucks to keep away. All antlered bucks do this before breeding begins but within a short period of time, dominant bucks temporarily evict all other antlered bucks from their breeding ranges to assure exclusive breeding of does in heat.