Engage with us in 2023
Opportunities to help us shape deer population goals for 23 of Minnesota's 130 deer permit areas continue through Monday, Feb. 13, when the goal-setting questionnaire for this year will be closed.
Areas included in this final year of goal setting are the East Central Uplands block (DPAs 52, 155, 156, 157, 159, 172, 183, 221, 222, 225, 248, 249, 604) and the Sand Plain/Big Woods block (DPAs 219, 223, 224, 227, 229, 235, 236, 285, 338, 605).
Anyone who has an interest in deer management is invited to give feedback on deer population trends in the areas where they live, work and recreate. Regardless of your affiliation or interactions with deer, we want to engage with you.
Questions we're asking allow participants to indicate whether the deer population in a particular DPA should increase, decrease or stay the same and provide their rationale.
How to participate
Informational webinar
We encourage you to watch the informational webinar we conducted on Monday, Jan. 23, before formulating your questionnaire responses. DNR wildlife staff presented additional information about each goal-setting block and answered participant questions.
Watch the webinar
Review our information
We've provided information and our recommendation for each DPA included in this year's goal-setting blocks. Use the button below to review that information.
View goal-setting information
Engage with DNR
Use the button below to access and complete the online questionnaire by Monday, Feb. 13. If you have questions or need additional information, use the contact information provided for each DPA in the goal-setting information.
Complete the online questionnaire
Written comments
Instead of completing the online questionnaire, you may submit written comments via email or postal mail. Comments must be received by Monday, Feb. 13. We encourage you to view the informational webinar and our goal-setting information to learn more before submitting comments.
- Email: [email protected]
- Postal mail: Barb Keller; Fish and Wildlife Division; Minnesota Department of Natural Resources; 500 Lafayette Rd.; St. Paul, MN; 55155-4020
Goal setting information
- What is a goal?
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.
Deer population goals are updated in 15 regional goal-setting blocks comprised of multiple deer permit areas. The population goals established in each block provide direction for long-term management during the next 10 years, with a formal review every five years to assess if the goals are still headed in the right direction.
Goal-setting blocks and the DPAs that comprise them are established based on similar habitat, land uses, deer populations and deer hunter distribution. Discussing goals by blocks of DPAs informs management by grouping similar characteristics on which management decisions are based within specific areas.
These goals serve as reference points each year when DNR sets the deer hunting designation of each DPA. During that process, the DNR assesses whether the deer population in that DPA is above, below or at goal and sets bag limits and other regulations that will move the deer population toward that desired goal.
- 2023 goal-setting blocks & recommendations
- East Central Uplands
- DPAs: 152, 155, 156, 157, 159, 172, 183, 221, 222, 225, 248, 249, 604
Report: Attitude surveyDNR goal recommendations
DPA Goal Questions View rationale 152 ↔ No change Mille Lacs WMA This permit area is comprised entirely of the Mille Lacs Wildlife Management Area (WMA), a 39,000-acre WMA that is interspersed with upland forests and wetlands. WMAs are part of Minnesota’s recreation system and are established to protect and provide habitats for wildlife production and support public access for wildlife-based recreation. The majority (82%) of hunter survey respondents preferred an increase in the deer population, with a mean value of 32% desired increase in the population. No landowner input was taken for this DPA, as this DPA is made up entirely of public land. Local wildlife managers report issues with forest health related to deer browse - seeing little to no oak regeneration and poor native species regeneration overall. Given that this is public land with no restriction on hunter numbers, increases in the hunting season bag limit designation can be very influential on the deer population. However, pockets of habitat that are hard for hunters to access create refugia in the WMA. Recent harvest trends have been relatively stable. A recommendation to stay the same would likely result in hunting season regulations similar to recent years, consisting of either sex harvest strategies.
View rationale 155 ↑ 25% Aitkin wildlife This DPA is roughly 40% public and 60% private land, presenting challenges to manage deer as public land deer populations are typically lower than private lands that might have ample deer populations. This DPA has more predators and less agricultural land in the north compared to the south, but exhibits large blocks of forests on both private and public lands, providing very good deer habitat. The majority (76%) of hunter survey respondents preferred an increase in the deer population, with a mean value of 33% desired increase in the population. The greatest proportion (48%) of landowner survey respondents preferred for the deer population to increase, with a mean value of 19% desired increase in the population. The majority (77%) of landowner survey respondents that were non-hunters preferred the deer population stay the same. There are generally few agricultural deer depredation complaints in this DPA. Recent harvest trends have been stable to slightly declining. A recommendation to increase 25% would likely result in hunting season regulations with a more conservative harvest designation or a similar harvest designation to recent years, consisting of antlerless lottery or either sex harvest strategies.
View rationale 156 ↑ 25% Cloquet wildlife This DPA is comprised of mostly forested cover but also contains a fair amount of farmland. The majority (77%) of hunter survey respondents preferred an increase in the deer population, with a mean value of 33% desired increase in the population. The greatest proportion (47%) of landowner survey respondents preferred for the deer population to stay the same, with a mean value of 15% desired increase in the population. The majority (72%) of landowner survey respondents that were non-hunters preferred the deer population to stay the same. There are very few, if any, agricultural depredation complaints related to deer in this DPA. There is a robust population of wolves in this DPA; wolf predation has been an area of concern for hunters and cattle farmers. Recent harvest trends have been stable to slightly declining. A recommendation to increase 25% would likely result in hunting season regulations with a more conservative harvest designation or a similar harvest designation to recent years, consisting of antlerless lottery or either sex harvest strategies.
View rationale 157 ↔ No change Cambridge wildlife This is a diverse permit area which is predominately forested with large tracts of public land in the northern half and more agriculture dominating the southern half. The majority (66%) of hunter survey respondents preferred an increase in the deer population, with a mean value of 24% desired increase in the population. The greatest proportion (45%) of landowner survey respondents preferred for the deer population to stay the same, with a mean value of 10% desired increase in the population. The majority (57%) of landowner survey respondents that were non-hunters preferred the deer population stay the same. This DPA experiences some agricultural deer depredation complaints annually and some of them are severe. Local wildlife managers do hear from hunters about low deer numbers on or next to public state forest lands. Portions of this DPA were designated a CWD surveillance area in 2020 due to the detection of a CWD positive cervid farm. This DPA has completed 3-years of CWD surveillance without an additional CWD positive result. Recent harvest trends have been relatively stable. A recommendation to stay the same would likely result in hunting season regulations similar to recent years, consisting of either sex harvest strategies.
View rationale 159 ↑ 25% increase Cloquet wildlife This permit area is composed of a good mix of forested cover and agricultural land. The majority (66%) of hunter survey respondents preferred an increase in the deer population, with a mean value of 25% desired increase in the population. The greatest proportion (49%) of landowner survey respondents preferred for the deer population to increase, with a mean value of 14% desired increase in the population. The majority (54%) of landowner survey respondents that were non-hunters preferred the deer population to stay the same. There are some small isolated pockets of agricultural deer depredation complaints among soybean farmers in the area but those are limited. DPA 159 has some large tracts of public land that provide great access to deer hunting. This DPA was designated a CWD surveillance area in 2020 due to the detection of a CWD positive cervid farm. This DPA has completed 3-years of CWD surveillance without an additional CWD positive result. Recent harvest trends have been relatively stable. A recommendation to increase 25% would likely result in hunting season regulations with a more conservative harvest designation or a similar harvest designation to recent years, consisting of antlerless lottery or either sex harvest strategies.
View rationale 172 ↑ 25% increase Brainerd wildlife This permit area is composed mostly of forest and includes a significant amount of public land. The majority (79%) of hunter survey respondents preferred an increase in the deer population, with a mean value of 38% desired increase in the population. The majority (50%) of landowner survey respondents preferred for the deer population to stay the same, with a mean value of 11% desired increase in the population. The majority (66%) of landowner survey respondents that were non-hunters preferred the deer population to stay the same. Local wildlife managers do not receive any agricultural deer depredation complaints as there is not much agriculture in the DPA. Winter is typically more severe on the northern portion than the southern portion of this DPA, and can impact deer populations. Recent harvest trends have been slightly declining. A recommendation to increase 25% would likely result in hunting season regulations with a more conservative harvest designation or a similar harvest designation to recent years, consisting of antlerless lottery or either sex harvest strategies. hunting season regulations with a more conservative harvest designation or a similar harvest designation to recent years, consisting of antlerless lottery or either sex harvest strategies.
View rationale 183 ↑ 25% increase Cloquet wildlife This permit area is composed mostly of forested cover but does include some agricultural areas. The majority (73%) of hunter survey respondents preferred an increase in the deer population, with a mean value of 31% desired increase in the population. The greatest proportion (47%) of landowner survey respondents preferred for the deer population to stay the same, with a mean value of 16% desired increase in the population. The majority (72%) of landowner survey respondents that were non-hunters preferred the deer population to stay the same. This DPA does experience some agricultural deer depredation complaints from farmers with soybeans during the summer months and producers with stored forage in winter months, but these are usually smaller, solvable issues. There is a large portion of heavily forested area that is made up of the Nemadji State Forest that has great hunter access and a robust population of wolves. This DPA does have areas that experience Lake Superior snow effects, resulting in areas that tend to have lower deer populations. Recent harvest trends have been slightly declining. A recommendation to increase 25% would likely result in hunting season regulations with a more conservative harvest designation or a similar harvest designation to recent years, consisting of antlerless lottery or either sex harvest strategies.
View rationale 221 ↓ 25% decrease Little Falls wildlife This permit area consists of highly productive deer habitat and is comprised mostly of private land. The majority (59%) of hunter survey respondents preferred the deer population stay the same, with a mean value of 6% desired increase in the population. The majority (59%) of landowner survey respondents preferred for the deer population to stay the same, with a mean value of -2% desired decrease in the population. The majority (67%) of landowner survey respondents that were non-hunters preferred the deer population to stay the same. Local wildlife managers report a high amount of agricultural and other depredation complaints related to deer, as well as overbrowse on both public and private lands. Historically people in this area have been pretty tolerant of deer depredation but that sentiment has recently shifted. Recent harvest trends have been steadily increasing. A recommendation to decrease 25% would likely result in liberalized hunting season regulations similar to the harvest designations as recent years, consisting of a three-deer limit with an early antlerless season.
View rationale 222 ↓ 25% decrease Little Falls wildlife
Cloquet wildlifeThe northern portion of this permit area contains more forested cover and less agricultural production than the southern portion, but overall the area is highly productive deer habitat. The majority (51%) of hunter survey respondents preferred an increase in the deer population, with a mean value of 14% desired increase in the population. The majority (53%) of landowner survey respondents preferred for the deer population to stay the same, with a mean value of -2% desired decrease in the population. The greatest proportion (48%) of landowner survey respondents that were non-hunters preferred the deer population to stay the same. Local wildlife managers report a high amount of agricultural and other depredation complaints related to deer, as well as overbrowse on both public and private lands. Historically people in this area have been pretty tolerant of deer depredation but that sentiment has recently shifted. Recent harvest trends have been steadily increasing. A recommendation to decrease 25% would likely result in liberalized hunting season regulations similar to the harvest designations as recent years, consisting of a three-deer limit with an early antlerless season.
View rationale 225 ↓ 25% decrease Cambridge wildlife This permit area is comprised of excellent deer habitat and rarely experiences severe winters. The majority (51%) of hunter survey respondents preferred an increase in the deer population, with a mean value of 16% desired increase in the population. The majority (51%) of landowner survey respondents preferred for the deer population to stay the same, with a mean value of 8% desired increase in the population. The majority (53%) of landowner survey respondents that were non-hunters preferred the deer population to stay the same. Local wildlife managers in this DPA receive a high amount of agricultural and other depredation complaints related to deer. This DPA has a lot of agricultural fields but also a good amount of timber stands, resulting in very productive deer habitat. This area is also experiencing unprecedented development - creating refugia from hunting and areas with very high localized deer populations. Portions of this DPA were designated a CWD surveillance area in 2020 due to the detection of a CWD positive cervid farm. This DPA has completed 3-years of CWD surveillance without an additional CWD positive result. Recent harvest trends have been steadily increasing. A recommendation to decrease 25% would likely result in liberalized hunting season regulations similar to the harvest designations as recent years, consisting of a three-deer limit with an early antlerless season.
View rationale 248 ↔ No change Little Falls wildlife This is a relatively small DPA that does not have as high of hunter densities as other surrounding DPAs and contains patches of very good deer habitat. The majority (58%) of hunter survey respondents preferred an increase in the deer population, with a mean value of 18% desired increase in the population. The greatest proportion (50%) of landowner survey respondents preferred for the deer population to stay the same, with a mean value of 9% desired increase in the population. The majority (67%) of landowner survey respondents that were non-hunters preferred the deer population to stay the same. Deer-related agricultural depredation complaints have recently emerged in this permit area, which is a new development. The deer population is difficult to control around Camp Ripley with deer continuously moving in and out and limited time periods of hunting access inside the camp. Recent harvest trends have been slightly increasing. A recommendation to stay the same would likely result in hunting season regulations similar to recent years or slightly more liberal, consisting of 2-deer limit or 3-deer limit harvest strategies.
View rationale 249 ↔ No change Little Falls wildlife The rolling topography in this permit area contains a mix of land cover including agriculture, wetlands, and various forest types. The greatest proportion (50%) of hunter survey respondents preferred an increase in the deer population, with a mean value of 15% desired increase in the population. The majority (58%) of landowner survey respondents preferred for the deer population to stay the same, with a mean value of 4% desired increase in the population. The majority (77%) of landowner survey respondents that were non-hunters preferred the deer population to stay the same. There has been growing feedback from agricultural, specialty crop growers, and other landowners over the past few years about deer depredation complaints but they are still isolated. Beyond the isolated deer depredation complaints, areas of high-use agriculture do not seem to be experiencing deer damage. Recent harvest trends have been slightly increasing. A recommendation to stay the same would likely result in hunting season regulations similar to recent years, consisting of a 2-deer limit harvest strategy.
View rationale 604 ↔ No change Brainerd wildlife This DPA was designated as a chronic wasting disease (CWD Management Zone in 2019), and is composed of a mix of pine and hardwood forests. The majority (70%) of hunter survey respondents preferred an increase in the deer population, with a mean value of 29% desired increase in the population. The majority (56%) of landowner survey respondents preferred for the deer population to stay the same, with a mean value of 6% desired increase in the population The majority (64%) of landowner survey respondents that were non-hunters preferred the deer population to stay the same. Hunters in this DPA have provided great assistance for CWD surveillance and management, providing samples from hunter-harvest deer. Hunter assistance with CWD surveillance has provided the DNR robust information on disease prevalence and distribution on the landscape. It appears CWD prevalence is very low in this DPA but disease management remains a priority. Recent harvest trends have been relatively stable. A recommendation to stay the same would likely result in hunting season regulations similar to recent years, consisting of a 3-deer limit with the option to hold an early antlerless season.
- Sand Plain Big Woods
- DPAs: 219, 223, 224, 227, 229, 235, 236, 285, 338, 605
Report: Attitude surveyDNR goal recommendations
DPA Goal Questions View rationale 219 ↓ 25% decrease Sauk Rapids wildlife This permit area is comprised of interspersed habitat containing rolling scattered hardwood forests mixed with agricultural croplands. The habitat is fragmented with areas of higher deer densities in good-to-great habitat and lower densities in areas with poorer deer habitat. The majority (58%) of hunter survey respondents preferred an increase in the deer population, with a mean value of 18% desired increase in the population. The majority (57%) of landowner survey respondents preferred for the deer population to stay the same, with a mean value of 6% desired increase in the population. The majority (70%) of landowner survey respondents that were non-hunters preferred the deer population stay the same. Local wildlife managers report relatively few calls about traditional agricultural depredation complaints related to deer (e.g., row crop or stored forage damage), however there are observable deer browse lines in woodlands and excessive browse on native vegetation. There is an increasing number of specialty crop growers in this area - orchards and vineyards - that are experiencing deer depredation. Recent harvest trends have been steadily increasing. A recommendation to decrease 25% would likely result in liberalized hunting season regulations similar to harvest designations as recent years, consisting of a three-deer limit with an option for an early antlerless season.
View rationale 223 ↓ 25% decrease Little Falls wildlife
Sauk Rapids wildlifeThe eastern two-thirds of this DPA is comprised of hardwoods and agricultural areas interspersed with large wetlands and lakes. The western third of the permit area is dominated by large irrigated agricultural fields. The majority (55%) of hunter survey respondents preferred to see an increase in the deer population, with a mean value of 15% desired increase in the population. The majority (56%) of landowner survey respondents preferred for the deer population to stay the same, with a mean value of 6% desired increase in the population. The majority (61%) of landowner survey respondents that were non-hunters preferred the deer population stay the same. Local wildlife managers report relatively few row crop agricultural complaints; however, specialty crop growers (e.g., vegetables, orchards and vineyards) in this DPA have been expressing concerns over deer depredation issues. Deer in this area enter winter in great shape because of ample food and nutrition resulting from large irrigated fields that provide early and ample forage for deer. Recent harvest trends have been steadily increasing. A recommendation to decrease 25% would likely result in liberalized hunting season regulations similar to harvest designations as recent years, consisting of a three-deer limit with an option for an early antlerless season.
View rationale 224 ↓ 25% decrease Sauk Rapids wildlife This permit area is comprised entirely of the Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge, a 30,700-acre wildlife refuge containing oak savanna, prairie, forest, wetlands, and riverine habitats. The majority (67%) of hunter survey respondents preferred to see an increase in the deer population, with a mean value of 21% desired increase in the population. No landowner input was taken for this DPA as it is made up entirely of public land. There are many specialty growers in this area surrounding the refuge border, especially tree farms that have been experiencing depredation related to deer browse. During the winter months deer tend to move off the refuge onto private properties where higher energy foods are more available, sometimes creating human/deer conflicts. The refuge has good deer habitat, with numerous prescribed burns providing high quality forage. Recent harvest trends have been slightly increasing. A recommendation to decrease 25% would likely result in a more liberalized hunting season regulation compared to the harvest designations of recent years, consisting of a two-deer limit.
View rationale 227 ↓ 25% decrease Carlos Avery WMA This permit area is comprised of hardwood forests, grassland and wetland habitats with interspersed agriculture. The northern portion has more row crop production and the southern edge has higher densities of human development creating pockets of refugia that hunters cannot access, resulting in higher deer densities near the metro area. The greatest proportion (50%) of hunter survey respondents preferred that the deer population stay the same, with a mean value of 13% desired increase in the population. The majority (55%) of landowner survey respondents preferred that the deer population to stay the same, with a mean value of 1% desired increase in the population. The majority (54%) of landowner survey respondents that were non-hunters preferred the deer population to stay the same. Local wildlife managers report concerns from landowners about deer related damage to landscaping, crops, forests, and native vegetation. Recent harvest trends have been steadily increasing. A recommendation to decrease 25% would likely result in liberalized hunting season regulations similar to harvest designations as recent years, consisting of a three-deer limit with an option for an early antlerless season.
View rationale 229 ↓ 25% decrease Sauk Rapids wildlife This permit area is comprised of rolling hardwoods and agricultural lands interspersed with rivers and lakes. The greatest proportion (49%) of hunter survey respondents preferred to see an increase in the deer population, with a mean value of 22% desired increase in the population. The majority (64%) of landowner survey respondents preferred for the deer population to stay the same, with a mean value of 9% desired increase in the population. The majority (75%) of landowner survey respondents that were non-hunters preferred the deer population to stay the same. Local wildlife managers report an increasing number of orchard, vegetable, pumpkin, and other specialty growers experiencing deer depredation issues. Due to the wide variety of habitats - private lands, large agricultural fields and large farms, specialty crop growers - and increasing land development, there are areas with little to no hunting pressure and high localized deer densities. The permit area provides deer very good nutrition due to a large number of irrigated agricultural fields. Recent harvest trends have been steadily increasing. A recommendation to decrease 25% would likely result in liberalized hunting season regulations similar to harvest designations as recent years, consisting of a three-deer limit with an option for an early antlerless season.
View rationale 235 ↑ 25% increase Carlos Avery WMA This permit area is comprised entirely of the Carlos Avery Wildlife Management Area (WMA), a 24,000-acre wildlife area interspersed with upland forests, wetlands, small grassland fields, and wildlife food plots. WMAs are part of Minnesota’s recreation system and are established to protect and provide habitats for wildlife production and support public access for wildlife-based recreation. The majority (71%) of hunter survey respondents preferred to see an increase in the deer population, with a mean value of 27% desired increase in the population. No landowner input was taken for this DPA as this DPA is made up entirely of public land. The permit area has relatively good oak and other native plant regeneration and does not seem to be overbrowsed by deer. This permit area has portions within or very near the Metro area, providing a lot of opportunity to hunters. Recent harvest trends have been steadily increasing. A recommendation to increase 25% would likely result in hunting season regulations similar to recent years, consisting of either sex harvest or two-deer limit harvest strategies.
View rationale 236 ↔ No change Carlos Avery WMA The southern portion of this permit area is highly developed and in the Twin Cities metropolitan area, the northern portion is more rural with hardwood forests, wetlands, lakes and agricultural fields throughout. The greatest proportion (49%) of hunter survey respondents preferred to see an increase in the deer population, with a mean value of 17% desired increase in the population. The majority (57%) of landowner survey respondents preferred for the deer population to stay the same, with a mean value of 4% desired increase in the population. The majority (61%) of landowner survey respondents that were non-hunters preferred the deer population to stay the same. This DPA has an increasing number of vegetable growers with small acreages experiencing minor deer depredation issues but typically these are isolated incidents that do not contain areas conducive to hunting. There are rarely complaints in this DPA from other agricultural producers or urban landscapers. Recent harvest trends have been steadily increasing. A recommendation to stay the same would likely result in hunting season regulations similar or more liberalized as recent years, consisting of two-deer limit or three-deer limit harvest strategies with an option for an early antlerless season.
View rationale 285 ↔ No change Nicollet wildlife This permit area is comprised of a mosaic of agricultural and wooded areas interspersed with lakes, wetlands, and rivers. The majority (58%) of hunter survey respondents preferred to see an increase in the deer population, with a mean value of 18% desired increase in the population. The majority (54%) of landowner survey respondents preferred for the deer population to stay the same, with a mean value of 8% desired increase in the population. The majority (67%) of landowner survey respondents that were non-hunters preferred the deer population to stay the same. Local wildlife managers receive complaints from specialty crop growers (e.g., vegetables, trees, orchards) experiencing deer depredation concerns. This DPA can be difficult to manage deer populations, with areas of very productive deer habitat surrounding the riverine corridors, lakes and wetlands that contain higher deer densities but also areas with poorer deer habitat and lower deer densities. Recent harvest trends have been steadily increasing. A recommendation to stay the same would likely result in hunting season regulations similar or more liberalized as recent years, consisting of two-deer limit or three-deer limit harvest strategies.
View rationale 338 ↔ No change Vermillion complex This permit area contains a mixture of agricultural land, prairie, wetlands, upland forests, bluffland forests, and floodplain forests. The majority (67%) of hunter survey respondents preferred to see an increase in the deer population, with a mean value of 25% desired increase in the population. The majority (62%) of landowner survey respondents preferred for the deer population to stay the same, with a mean value of 2% desired increase in the population. The majority (71%) of landowner survey respondents that were non-hunters preferred the deer population to stay the same. Local wildlife managers receive few depredation complaints resulting from deer, except for in the northern portion where they hear from landowners experiencing deer depredation on landscaping. The northern portion of this DPA has a substantial amount of ongoing land development and reduced hunting pressure with good pockets of deer habitat. In close proximity to the Twin Cities metropolitan area, the public land experiences heavy hunting pressure. The southern portion is much more rural with agricultural holdings, providing good deer habitat. There are disease concerns in this DPA with a CWD-positive deer detected near the eastern border of the permit area. Recent harvest trends have been stable to slightly increasing. A recommendation to stay the same would likely result in hunting season regulations similar to recent years, consisting of a two-deer limit harvest strategy.
View rationale 605 ↓ 25% decrease Vermillion complex
Owatonna wildlifeThis permit area contains a mixture of agricultural land, prairie, wetlands, upland forests, bluffland forests, and floodplain forests. The majority (57%) of hunter survey respondents preferred to see an increase in the deer population, with a mean value of 18% desired increase in the population. The majority (55%) of landowner survey respondents preferred for the deer population to stay the same, with a mean value of 2% desired increase in the population. The majority (63%) of landowner survey respondents that were non-hunters preferred the deer population to stay the same. Local wildlife managers do receive a few traditional agricultural (e.g., row crop or stored forage damage) depredation complaints related to deer, along with a few specialty crop farmers (e.g., vegetables, trees, orchards) experiencing damage by deer. Further, the county parks have a high amount of overbrowse related to deer densities on or near the parks. The public land experiences heavy hunting pressure due to the proximity to the Twin Cities metropolitan area. There are disease concerns in this DPA with several CWD-positive deer detections within the permit area. Recent harvest trends have been relatively stable but since this is a newly formed DPA this is only 3-years of harvest data. A recommendation to decrease 25% would likely result in hunting season regulations similar to recent years, consisting of a five-deer limit harvest strategy with an option for an early antlerless season.
- Goal setting history
Information about deer population goals established for other goal-setting blocks in previous years can be found on the history page.
