Dennis Anderson: In NE Minnesota, DNR staff, habitat and deer all decline

— A: Throughout most of the northeast, our input was received positively.

— Q: Were you able to document results?

— A: The research we based our efforts on was good, and our general belief was that if we built it, they would come. In fact, use by deer of habitat we developed and protected was very evident. We ran pellet counts to survey deer numbers, and based on those it was obvious deer were using them.

— Q: Did the license surcharge sustain these efforts?

— A: The surcharge eventually became $2, and through 2008 to about 2010, we were still actively working with the license money and also with RIM Critical Habitat funds. Then it started to drop off.

— Q: Why?

— A: Complicating things was the management of School Trust Lands, about 2 million acres of which are located in 10 northern Minnesota counties. This became a serious issue about the time I retired, in 2015. Managing these lands for maximum income became the priority, not wildlife habitat. Previously, we could convert an acre of land into a wildlife opening, for example, but we couldn't do that anymore. Those of us in DNR Wildlife were assured wildlife input and concerns would remain important. This proved not to be the case. We went so far as to propose buying out the trust of several key deer habitats. These proposals were never approved.

— Q: Has the reduction of DNR staff and offices in the northeast hurt wildlife there?

— A: DNR Wildlife offices have been closed in International Falls, Virginia and Grand Marais, and positions eliminated. These staffs worked closely with DNR foresters as well as federal and county foresters. Whereas before we developed and maintained wildlife openings, sheared vegetation to create browse adjacent to deer wintering areas, planted and protected cedar and other important conifers to provide thermal cover for wintering deer, constructed hunter and logging access trails, and conducted prescriptive burns, those programs have all but been eliminated.

— Q: Why were the offices closed?

— A: To save money during lean budget years. The loss of these offices and staff has greatly reduced the DNR Wildlife Section's ability to influence timber management on public lands, respond to public needs and to direct habitat improvement projects.

— Q: Could you see the results of your habitat work?

— A: Yes. While it's true severe winters are always hard on deer in the northeast, with the habitat base we built, deer could rebound very quickly. An example is in Deer Permit Area (DPA) 115. It's generally the same area now it was in 2003, when 5,032 deer were killed. Ten years later, the harvest was 1,556, and last year it was just 557. To me, that's not acceptable.

— Q: What's your take on the severe weather-habitat-wolf mix that affects deer in the northeast?

— A: Wolves have always been there. When I hunted DPA 118 and 119 beginning in 1980, wolves were there, as they are now. What's changed is habitat. We had a mix of older and younger aspen, with balsam as a component. Now you mainly see young aspen with no conifer component. What's left of good thermal cover got smaller and smaller, and as those areas shrunk, deer became more vulnerable to wolves. It's surprising to me, in fact, that wolf advocates aren't alarmed by these habitat losses because wolf numbers likely will decline as the deer have.

— Q: Are today's timber harvests sustainable?

— A: It's debatable. Some northern counties are managing forests much the same as the state does, in some cases planting rows of red pine after cuts. These aren't good for wildlife, and what's worse is the spraying they do to eliminate hardwood competition. Understories of browse are good for deer and other wildlife. But in many cases, it's not there anymore. Plantation developments like these aren't an issue on Forest Service lands because they don't use herbicides and their sites usually develop into more natural mixed stands.