Historic deer population goal setting

• About the goal-setting process
• 2020-2023 goal setting

• Historical goal-setting information
• Goal-setting resources

About the goal-setting process

The DNR sets deer population goals – how much of an increase or decrease is desired in a deer population in a particular deer permit area – as part of managing the state’s wild deer herd.

Deer population goals are updated in 15 regional goal-setting blocks that are made of multiple deer permit areas. The population goals established in this process will provide direction for long-term management over 10 years, with a formal review every five years to assess if the goals are still headed in the right direction.

These goals are referenced each year in the season-setting process. During this process, the DNR assesses where the deer population in that particular area is relative to its goal (above, under or at goal), and then sets bag limits and other regulations that will move the deer population toward that desired goal.

2020-2023 goal setting

Prior years' results

Third year (2022)

The third year focused on the following blocks, which include the following deer permit areas:

• Superior Uplands Arrowhead goal block – 117, 118, 126, 130, 131, 133
• North Central Plains Moraines goal block – 169, 184, 197, 210, 298
• Pine Moraines goal block – 241, 246, 251, 258, 259, 287
• Blufflands Plateau goal block – 341, 342, 343, 344, 643, 645, 646, 647, 648, 649, 655 

Based on information and feedback gathered from attitude survey respondents, online comments, and conversations with area wildlife managers, the population goals for 2021 through 2031 for these blocks are:

Superior Uplands Arrowhead

DPA	Goal	Notes	Justification
117	→ Stable	Primary moose range (except for 133). High amounts of public land. Very low deer and hunter densities. Severe winters and wolf predation in certain years impact deer populations. Management of deer in some areas along the north shore of Lake Superior are complicated by migratory deer movements.	The big game program has a commitment to manage moose as the big game priority in moose range. While deer hunters would like to see populations increase, nonhunting landowners prefer current numbers. Opposition expressed to the draft goal of stabilize during the public engagement period was not convergent on increasing or decreasing the population, thus, we are recommending we move forward with a goal of stable deer populations in this goal block, with the exception of DPA 133 outside of the moose zone. In the near term, management will likely continue to be conservative until deer population show signs of recovery.
118
126
130
131
133	↗ Slight increase (25%)

North Central Plains Moraines

DPA	Goal	Notes	Justification
169	↑ Significant increase (50%)	This goal block is primarily forested and dominated by public land. Deer populations are lower in the eastern portion of the goal block and increase to the west. Severe winters and predation play a greater role in deer populations in this block compared to the Pines Moraines goal block to the south.	Most hunters thought deer populations in this goal bock were too low (with exception of 210, where they were about right) while nonhunting landowners thought deer populations were about right. Most hunters wanted to see slight increases in deer numbers between 22-29%, while landowners alltogether preferred lower increases of 15% or less. Overall, there is room for deer populations to grow moderately in this goal block over the next five years.
184	↗ Slight increase (25%)
197
198
210	→ Stable

Pine Moraines

DPA	Goal	Notes	Justification
241	→ Stable	This goal block is a mixture of public and private land and generally supports higher deer numbers and hunter densities compared to the North Central Plains Moraines goal block to the north. There is also more agriculture in this goal block as you move to the west and deer damage can sometimes be an issue.	Hunters thought deer populations here were too low, with the exception of DPAs 241 and 258 which they thought were about right. Non-hunting landowners thought deer populations were about right throughout the block. Hunters generally preferred stable or slightly increasing (27% or less) deer populations with the exceptions of the public land DPAs, Itasca State Park (287) and Tamarac National WIldlife Refuge (251) where hunters preferred higher increases. Population goals for these public land areas were developed in consultation with area land managers. Overall stable recommendations were recommended for most of this goal block to balance hunter and landowner desires and prevent increases in deer numbers which may lead to issues with agricultural damage.
246
251
258
259	↗ Slight increase (25%)
287	→ Stable

Blufflands Plateau

DPA	Goal	Notes	Justification
341	→ Stable	Mostly private land, excellent deer habitat, high deer and hunter densities. CWD surveillance zone.	Growing populations, management likely to continue to be liberal to bring down population growth. Once populations show signs of stabilization (pop. model and harvest shows growth rates slowing), bag limits will decrease.
342
343	→ Stable	Mostly private land, excellent deer habitat, high deer and hunter densities. CWD Control Zone.
344	→ Stable	Whitewater State Park and WMA. Higher hunter pressure here. Good deer habitat, deer damage on limited private land can be a problem. CWD control Zone.
643	→ Stable	Mostly private land, excellent deer habitat, high deer and hunter densities. CWD management zone.
645
646	↘ Slight decrease (25%)	Mostly private land, excellent deer habitat, high deer and hunter densities. CWD management zone. Area of persistent infection.	Management here likely to remain the same until deer numbers show signs of decreasing. Bag limits will be slower to decrease here compared to the rest of the block based on a goal of decrease.
647
648
649	→ Stable	Mostly private land, excellent deer habitat, high deer and hunter densities. CWD management zone. No positive CWD detections inside this DPA.	Growing populations, management likely to continue to be liberal to bring down population growth. Once populations show signs of stabilization (pop. model and harvest shows growth rates slowing), bag limits will decrease.
655		Mostly private land, limited deer habitat compared to the rest of this block – heavy agriculture. Deer numbers, harvest, and hunter numbers here much lower than rest of the block. CWD management zone, no positive CWD detections inside this DPA.	Management here may become more conservative if assessment is that deer population has decreased. In contrast to the rest of the block, deer population growth here is not high.

Second year (2021)

The second year focused on the following blocks in areas of southwest and northeast Minnesota, which include the following deer permit areas:

• Minnesota River goal block – 274, 275, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 290
• South Central goal block – 230, 232, 233, 253, 254, 255, 291, 292, 293, 299
• Coteau-Plains goal block – 234, 237, 238, 250, 252, 286, 288, 289, 294, 295, 296
• Border Uplands/St. Louis Moraines goal block – 119, 132, 171, 173, 176, 177, 178, 179, 181, 199

Based on information and feedback gathered from attitude survey respondents, online comments, and conversations with area wildlife managers, the population goals for 2021 through 2031 for these blocks are:

Minnesota River goal block

DPA	Goal	Notes
274	→ stable	Good deer habitat confined to riparian areas, mostly private land, dominated by agriculture.
275	→ stable	More public land available in this DPA.
278	↗ increase slightly (25%)	Nearly 20% of DPA is public land with excellent deer habitat.
279	→ stable	Fair deer numbers, deer damage can be an issue here.
280	↗ increase slightly (25%)	Mostly private land, deer habitat limited here.
281	*boundary change pending ↘ slight decrease (25%)	Excellent deer habitat. Damage to native vegetation observed. The proposed boundary change would expand 281 by incorporating land to the west of Highway 10. Shifting land-use in the southwest corner of DPA 282 has resulted in deer habitat and populations in this area that are better matched to DPA 281.
282	*boundary change pending (same as 283) ↗ increase slightly (25%)	Limited pockets of deer habitat. The proposed boundary change would expand the southern portion of 282 into 283. The northern portion of 283 would remain 283. The deer populations and habitats in this area better aligns with 282 so this change would allow for better management of the deer populations in these areas.
283	*boundary change pending (same as 282) → stable	Vastly different habitat in north vs. south. The proposed boundary change would expand the southern portion of 282 into 283. The northern portion of 283 would remain 283. The deer populations and habitats in this area better aligns with 282 so this change would allow for better management of the deer populations in these areas.
284	→ stable	Limited pockets of deer habitat.
290	↘ slight decrease (25%)	Excellent deer habitat. Damage to native vegetation observed.

South Central goal block

DPA	Goal	Notes
230	→ stable	Mostly private land dominated by agriculture. Habitat a mix of grasslands, marshes, brushy area, groves.
232	→ stable	Mostly private land dominated by agriculture. Habitat a mix of grasslands, marshes, brushy area, groves.
233	→ stable	Mostly private land dominated by agriculture. Habitat a mix of grasslands, marshes, brushy area, groves.
253	→ stable	Mostly private agricultural land, Walnut Lake WMA provides excellent habitat.
254	→ stable	Mostly private land dominated by agriculture. Habitat a mix of grasslands, marshes, brushy area, groves.
255	→ stable	Mostly private land dominated by agriculture. Habitat a mix of grasslands, marshes, brushy area, groves.
291	→ stable	Excellent deer habitat, higher deer numbers here. Mostly private land.
292	→ stable	Good deer habitat. Borders DPA 605.
293	→ stable	Good deer habitat. Borders DPA 605.
299	→ stable	Good deer habitat.

Coteau-Plains goal block

DPA	Goal	Notes
234	→ stable	Deer habitat very limited.
237	→ stable	Deer habitat very limited.
238	→ stable	Talcot Lake WMA
250	→ stable	Some pockets of good deer habitat and public hunting areas.
252	→ stable	Some pockets of good deer habitat which have been increasing.
286	→ stable	Some pockets of good deer habitat and public hunting areas.
288	→ stable	Some pockets of good deer habitat and public hunting areas.
289	↘ decrease slightly (25%)	Habitat heavily concentrated along riparian areas. Damage to crops and stored forage can be an issue.
294	→ stable
295	*boundary change pending → stable	Some pockets of good deer habitat and public hunting areas. The proposed boundary change would expand the southern portion of DPA 295 into DPA 237. Deer densities and habitat in the northern portion of 237 are more similar to 295, and this change would allow for the desire to harvest additional deer in this area.
296	→ stable	Some pockets of good deer habitat and public hunting areas. The proposed boundary change would expand the southern portion of DPA 295 into DPA 237. Deer densities and habitat in the northern portion of 237 are more similar to 295, and this change would allow for the desire to harvest additional deer in this area.

Border Uplands/St. Louis Moraines goal block 

DPA	Goal	Notes
119	↑ increase significantly (75%)	Winter, wolf predation in certain years significantly impact population. Borders moose range. Mostly public land.
132	↑ increase significantly (75%)	Winter, wolf predation in certain years significantly impact population. Borders moose range. Mostly public land (USFS).
171	↗ increase slightly (25%)	Good habitat, a lot of public land. Adjacent to DPA 604.
173	*boundary change pending ↗ increase slightly (25%)	Proposed boundary change to increase consistency of habitat types. A good amount of public land, habitat is mixed across area.
176	↑ increase significantly (50%)	Winter, wolf predation in certain years significantly impact population. Borders moose range. A mix of public and private land.
177	↗ increase slightly (25%)	Winter, wolf predation in certain years significantly impact population. Borders moose range. A mix of public and private land.
178	↗ increase slightly (25%)	Winter, wolf predation in certain years significantly impact population. Borders moose range. A mix of public and private land.
179	*boundary change pending ↗ increase slightly (25%)	Mostly private and industrial forest land. Good habitat. The proposed boundary change would expand the northern border of 179 into 169. The southern portion of 169 has densities more in line with 179, and would include clearer boundaries using different roads.
181	↗ increase slightly (25%)	Mix of public and private.
199	↗ increase slightly (25%)	Permit area 199 is the Fond du Lac reservation. DNR staff worked with FDL Tribal staff to determine the recommendation

2021 public participation summary

In addition to getting feedback through attitude surveys, the DNR collected information on deer populations and goals using an online input tool in February 2021, and a subsequent comment questionnaire in March 2021. During the public input period, 341 people participated, and during the public comment period, 78 people participated. 

Public input

During public input the number of responses per deer permit area ranged from 1 to 75, with an average of 10 responses per DPA. Overall, public input indicated a desire for an increase in the deer population. Key issues expressed during an online discussion forum included: 

• Wolf predation in northern Minnesota
• Potential opportunities to adjust season dates and concerns for having the deer season during the rut
• Enforcement issues including baiting, recreational deer feeding, filling other people’s tags and trespassing
• Trophy buck management
• Increasing antlerless deer harvest in some permit areas
• Lower deer numbers than experienced in previous years
• Potential strategies to increase hunter recruitment

Public comment

The DNR provided proposed goals for public comment. The number of responses per deer permit area ranged from 1 to 13, with an average of 4 responses per deer permit area. The overall number of responses was very low, and a few people disagreed with the proposed goals. Concerns with the proposed goals included too many deer or a desire for more deer, improving the sex/age ratio of deer and managing for overall habitat and biodiversity on the landscape. 

First year (2020)

The first year focused on the following blocks in the northwestern and western parts of the state, which include the following deer permit areas:

• Agassiz-Littlefork goal block – 101, 103, 105, 108, 110, 111, 114
• Northwest Parkland-Prairie goal block – 201, 203, 208, 209, 256, 257, 260, 261, 263, 264, 267, 268
• West Central Prairie goal block – 262, 265, 266, 269, 270, 271, 272, 297
• Central Hills Prairie goal block – 213, 214, 215, 218, 239, 240, 273, 276, 277

Final population goals

Based on information and feedback gathered from survey respondents, online comments, in-person meetings, workshops and conversations with area wildlife managers, the population goals for 2020 through 2030 for these blocks are:

Agassiz-Littlefork goal block 

Deer permit area	Goal	Notes
101	↗ increase slightly (25%)	Former management zone for bovine tuberculosis, past management aimed to keep deer populations low. This management response is now concluded and slight increases are desired.
103	*boundary change ↑ increase significantly (100%)	A boundary change is proposed to accommodate vastly different deer populations in the northern vs. southern portions of former DPA 103. Very low deer densities exist here and are well below socially acceptable levels.
105	→ stabilize	This area is dominated by agricultural habitat and can support higher deer populations than other DPAs in this block. Crop damage can be an issue, so maintaining current numbers without increasing population is goal.
108	*boundary change  → stabilize in new DPA 107 ↑ increase significantly (100%) in new DPA 109	A boundary change is proposed to accommodate vastly different deer populations in the northern and southern portions of former DPA 108. Higher deer populations exist in the northern portion and can result in localized damage issues, management will aim to stabilize this population. Management will be aimed to grow the much lower deer population in the southern portion, which is well below public desires.
110	↗ increase slightly (25%)	Moderate deer habitat and deer numbers in this permit area, light hunting pressure, management will aim to slightly increase numbers.
111	↑ increase significantly (100%)	Very low deer numbers well below social acceptance.
114	↑ increase significantly (50%)	The Northwest Angle, very low hunter numbers and harvest in this isolated DPA.

Northwest Parkland-Prairie goal block

Deer permit area	Goal	Notes
201	→ stabilize	This is a small permit area with limited access to public land. Goal will be to maintain current deer numbers.
203	↗ increase slightly (25%)	This permit area is almost entirely public land. Population was reduced during the bovine tuberculosis response, which is now concluded.
208	→ stabilize	This permit area is dominated by agricultural land, and thus crop damage is a consideration. Current numbers seem to be about right, and management will aim to stabilize population.
209	→ stabilize	Hunter success rates are high in this permit area, goal will be to maintain current numbers.
256	→ stabilize	Deer habitat in this permit area has decreased in recent years.
257	→ stabilize	Crop damage can be an issue in this permit area.
260	*boundary change  → stabilize	A boundary change is recommended to address issues along the northeast border with DPA 263 and will allow for more targeted management. This area is dominated by agriculture with little public hunting land.
261	↘ slight decrease (25%)	This permit area is dominated by agricultural land. Hunter numbers are very low but success rates are high, indicating a growing deer population.
263	*boundary change  ↗ increase slightly (25%)	A boundary change is recommended to address issues along southwest border with DPA 260. This permit area provides abundant deer habitat and public hunting ground.
264	→ stabilize	Abundant habitat in this deer permit area with moderate amount of public hunting access.
267	→ stabilize	Lower deer densities in this permit area reflect limited habitat.
268	→ stabilize	This permit area supports good amounts of public land and deer habitat.

West Central Prairie goal block

Deer permit area	Goal	Notes
262	→ stabilize	This permit area is dominated by agricultural land with limited deer habitat. Localized deer damage issues exist, but deer densities are low.
265	↘ slight decrease (25%)	Deer numbers here are higher than surrounding area and are increasing. Some damage issues exist, so a slight decrease is warranted.
266	→ stabilize	Deer habitat has decreased in recent years with loss of CRP land. Deer numbers are moderate and increasing, stabilization preferred.
269	↗ increase slightly (25%)	This permit area is dominated by agricultural land with limited deer habitat. Localized deer damage issues exist, but deer densities, hunter numbers, and success rates are low.
270	↗ increase slightly (25%)	This permit area is dominated by agricultural land with limited deer habitat. Localized deer damage issues exist, but deer densities, hunter numbers, and success rates are low.
271	↘ slight decrease (25%)	High deer numbers at wintering areas create damage issues.
272	↗ increase slightly (25%)	This permit area is dominated by agricultural land with limited deer habitat. Hunter numbers and success rates are low, management will aim at slightly increasing the population.
297	↑ increase significantly (50%)	Heavy hunting pressure in this permit area, but habitat can support higher deer numbers.

Central Hills Prairie goal block

Deer permit area	Goal	Notes
213	↘ decrease slightly (25%)	Deer numbers are high in this permit area and increasing, resulting in increasing crop damage complaints.  Hunters prefer to maintain high deer numbers while agricultural landowners prefer significant decreases.
214	↘ decrease slightly (25%)	Deer numbers are high in this permit area and increasing, resulting in increasing crop damage complaints.  Hunters prefer to maintain high deer numbers while agricultural landowners prefer significant decreases.
215	↘ decrease slightly (25%)	Deer numbers are high in this permit area and increasing, resulting in increasing crop damage complaints.  Hunters prefer to maintain high deer numbers while agricultural landowners prefer significant decreases.
218	↘ decrease slightly (25%)	Deer numbers are high in this permit area and increasing, resulting in increasing crop damage complaints. Hunters prefer to maintain high deer numbers while agricultural landowners prefer significant decreases.
239	→ stabilize	Good habitat in this permit area exists to accommodate deer populations, fewer crop damage complaints compared to surrounding areas, so goal will be to maintain current numbers.
240	↘ decrease slightly (25%)	Deer numbers are high in this permit area and increasing, resulting in increasing crop damage complaints. Hunters prefer to maintain high deer numbers while agricultural landowners prefer significant decreases.
273	↗ increase slightly (25%)	Lower deer densities here compared to surrounding areas, good habitat exists, so goal will be to slightly increase population.
276	↘ decrease slightly (25%)	Deer numbers are high in this permit area and increasing, resulting in increasing crop damage complaints. Hunters prefer to maintain high deer numbers while agricultural landowners prefer significant decreases.
277	↘ decrease slightly (25%)	Deer numbers are high in this permit area and increasing, resulting in increasing crop damage complaints. Hunters prefer to maintain high deer numbers while agricultural landowners prefer significant decreases.

2020 workshops summary

Summary: Key issues of interest and priorities to guide deer population management that were discussed during the deer goal-setting workshops listed above. During workshop 1, members of the public had an opportunity to discuss the following topics in small groups, with DNR staff present to answer questions and take notes.

2020 online public input summary

Feedback on deer population goals was gathered through the online deer populations and goals form during February 2020.

Table 1: Respondents' average desired change in the deer population 

The table shows public input results of the mean desired change in the deer population by goal-setting block by all respondents. It also indicates the mean desired changes broken down by non-landowner and landowner status.

BLOCK NAME	NO. OF RESPONDENTS	MIN. DESIRED CHANGE	MAX. DESIRED CHANGE	NON-LANDOWNERS	LANDOWNERS	ALL RESPONDENTS
Agassiz-Littlefork	162	-50%	+500%	+52.9%	+40.6%	+44.9%
Northwest Parkland-Prairie	136	-75%	+100%	+17.3%	+12.0%	+14.1%
West Central Prairie	48	-50%	+175%	+19.7%	+13.3%	+16.9%
Central Hills Prairie	316	-75%	+1000%	+20.4%	+4.2%	+8.9%

Historical goal-setting information

2015 goals

Goals listed below reflect the desired change in deer population from 2014 levels. Click the block heading or permit area for more information. Additional resources related to goal setting are listed after the goal listings.

Goal-Setting Block 1 Area Goal 117 Stabilize 122 ↑ 25% 126 ↑ 25% 127 Stabilize 180 ↑ 25%

Click to expand map

Goal-Setting Block 2 Area Goal 169 ↑ 50% 172 ↑ 25% 184 ↑ 50% 197 ↑ 50% 210 ↑ 50% 298 ↑ 50%

 

Goal-Setting Block 3
Area	Goal
241	Stabilize
242	↑ 25%
246	↑ 25%
248	↑ 25%
251	↑ 25% *
258	↑ 25%
259	↑ 25%
287	Stabilize
* Communicate desired goal to U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service refuge managers

 

Goal-Setting Block 4
Area	Goal
152	↑ 50%
155	↑ 25%
156	↑ 50%
157	↑ 25%
159	↑ 50%
183	↑ 50%
221	↑ 50%
222	↑ 50%
225	↑ 25%
247	Stabilize
249	↑ 50%
* Communicate desired goal to U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service refuge managers

Goal-Setting Block 5
Area	Goal
219	↑ 25%
223	↑ 25%
224	↑ 50% *
227	Stabilize
229	↑ 25%
235	↑ 25%
236	↑ 25%
285	↑ 25%
338	↑ 25%
339	↑ 25%

2014 goals

2014 goal setting

More deer in much of southeastern Minnesota is the anticipated outcome of a citizen-led deer population goal-setting process that increases deer numbers in five of the nine permit areas under review. DNR increased goal densities in deer permit areas 341, 342, 345, 347 and 348. Permit areas 343, 346 and 349 will maintain existing goal densities. Whitewater Wildlife Management Area, permit area 344, will maintain current densities.

• Established goals for southeastern Minnesota
• Summary of public comments received

Goal-setting resources

Attitude survey reports

• Agassiz-Littlefork – Block 6
• Northwest Parkland-Prairie – Block 7
• West Central Prairie – Block 8
• Central Hills Prairie – Block 9
• Minnesota River – Block 10
• South Central – Block 11
• Coteau-Plains – Block 13
• Border Uplands/St. Louis Moraines – Block 14

 •G3 survey conducted summer 2014
 •G1, G2, G4, G5 surveys conducted fall-winter 2014-2015
 •G7, G8, G9 surveys conducted fall-winter 2015-2016

Hunter and landowner survey results

Reports include information about hunter satisfaction

 •Full report (includes all blocks from all years)

2015-2016

 •Sand Plain-Big Woods - Block 7
 •Sand Plain-Big Woods - Block 8
 •Sand Plain-Big Woods - Block 9

2014-2015

 •Superior Uplands Arrowhead - Block 1
 •North Central Plains Moraines - Block 2
 •East Central Uplands - Block 4
 •Sand Plain-Big Woods - Block 5

2014

 •Pine Moraines - Block 3

2013

 •Southeastern Minnesota landowner survey
 •Southeastern Minnesota deer hunter survey

Background information

 •Superior Uplands Arrowhead - Block 1
 •North Central Plains Moraines - Block 2
 •Pine Moraines - Block 3
 •East Central Uplands - Block 4
 •Sand Plain-Big Woods - Block 5

Advisory team recommendation

 •Superior Uplands Arrowhead - Block 1
 •North Central Plains Moraines - Block 2
 •Pine Moraines - Block 3
 •East Central Uplands - Block 4
 •Sand Plain-Big Woods - Block 5

Final 2015 deer goal setting reports

 •Superior Uplands Arrowhead - Block 1
 •North Central Plains Moraines - Block 2
 •Pine Moraines - Block 3
 •East Central Uplands - Block 4
 •Sand Plain-Big Woods - Block 5

2014 deer harvest report

Public comments & response

A complete summary of DNR response to public comments.