Ryan Rothstein: Examining the lost art of the doe hunt in Minnesota

Forgive the sarcasm in this week’s headline, but it’s backed by a lot of truth.

We just don’t harvest does like we used to in the recent past. Although some of this is by design (looking at you, northeastern Minnesota), a large part of the reduction in doe harvest is a result of hunters choosing not to shoot does anymore.

Consider this: In the 2024 deer season, Minnesota hunters registered 69,725 antlerless deer with all weapon types. In the 2003 deer season, we registered 120,734 antlerless deer.

I’m sure you might be thinking, well, hunter numbers have decreased since then. That’s true, but hunter numbers decreased by only 17% from 2003 to 2024. In contrast, antlerless harvest decreased by almost 59% in that same period.

If you’re thinking the decline is because of fewer deer on the landscape, I disagree. Overall, I think we have as many or more deer across the state now than we did 20 years ago. The difference is that the areas with the highest deer densities have changed.

The disclaimer here is that many northeastern permit areas do have lower-density estimates in 2024 than they did in 2003, although not nearly as large a disparity as I was expecting. Surprisingly, many areas have only slightly lower deer densities in 2024 than in 2003.

Where in 2003 the highest deer densities in the state stretched from Akeley to Brainerd, the highest deer densities in 2024 stretch in a wide band from Alexandria to Center City, and down along the Mississippi River corridor. Numerous permit areas are estimated to have more than 60 deer per square mile, which is far higher than any permit area estimate from 2003.

I don’t need to rely on the DNR’s estimates to tell me this is true. I usually end up traveling all over the state through the course of a year, and I’ve never seen deer numbers like I have the past few years, particularly in the central part of the state. There are a lot of deer out there.

And yet, with numbers like these, why are we not killing more does? More than half of the permit areas in the state allow every hunter to take at least two deer in a year, but our harvest doesn’t reflect that at all. The statewide Deer Management Plan has an annual target harvest of 200,000 deer, but we haven’t hit that mark since 2010.

MORE WHITETAIL COVERAGE FROM OUTDOOR NEWS:

Video: Adjustments lead to an early-October doe in Minnesota

Lack of doe harvest a trend nationwide

Here’s how to bust the ‘lull’ and shoot deer in mid-October

Although many hunters are quick to blame the DNR for not hitting this goal, I think we need to look in the mirror. From 2000 until 2010, we were routinely shooting 200,000 deer annually, sometimes well north of that.

In that same stretch, every single time we broke a total harvest of 200,000, our antlerless harvest was over 100,000. The only year in the 2000s that didn’t break a 200,000 harvest was in 2009 and, unsurprisingly, we were just shy of a 100,000-deer antlerless harvest.

We haven’t had an antlerless harvest greater than 100,000 since 2011. Through some of those years, lower deer densities were definitely a factor, but in many areas of the state, that hasn’t been the case in at least five years. What’s more interesting to me is the inverse relationship during these past five years between increasing deer numbers and decreasing antlerless harvest.

If this trend continues, the ramifications will be interesting to watch. Frankly, we are the only landscape-scale deer-management tool that DNR has.

There would be no ability to manage deer numbers at all without hunters.

Currently, that has allowed deer hunters to have a disproportionately large say in how deer are managed across the state. Relative to our numbers, we have a front-row seat at the table. If we continue to not harvest does, I won’t be surprised if that seat gets pushed farther back as harvest goals aren’t met.

In other ways, harvesting does is simply the right thing to do. We don’t have large numbers of predators on most of the landscape to keep deer herds in check like there were pre-European settlement. We are pretty much it. It’s not healthy for the habitat to be overrun with deer, and the consequences can take a generation or more to heal.

We as hunters have a responsibility to do our part in keeping the habitat healthy, and we can start by taking more does. Hunters like to tout what great conservationists we are, but I would argue our daddies and granddaddies did it better. It’s time for us to collectively put our money where our mouth is.

For that reason, I’m going to take advantage of the numerous tags available to me and try to fill my freezer to the brim this year. I’m a venison enthusiast, so I eagerly take on this challenge. For those who maybe aren’t as crazy for venison as I am, I would still encourage you to take a doe or two. If you don’t need that much meat, consider donating it via a venison donation program. Or, even simpler, consider sharing it with friends and family who don’t hunt.

Few people will turn down free meat, and with the abundance of deer across most of the landscape, opportunities should be plentiful. It’s an easy way to do a good thing for the land, and for someone you care about.

With the early antlerless season going on right now (Oct. 16-19) in select permit areas, it’s a great way to get a bonus doe for a cheap tag. I’m looking forward to getting fresh venison back in the freezer, and I hope you’ll consider taking an extra doe or two this fall if you’re in an area with a large deer herd. Your habitat will thank you for it.