As Minnesota’s statewide firearms deer hunting season winds down this weekend, Wisconsin’s nine-day gun season begins.

If history holds, Wisconsin hunters stand a better chance of bagging a whitetail than their Minnesota counterparts.

THE NUMBERS

Roughly twice as many deer have been killed by hunters in Wisconsin each year in recent decades. Since 1980, Wisconsin hunters have registered an average of 367,000 deer each fall, compared with 185,000 in Minnesota, according to data from the two states.

The difference is more pronounced when you account for the fact that Minnesota has 48 percent more land. Since the 1960s, Wisconsin hunters have shot two to three times more per square mile than their Minnesota counterparts, according to an analysis of data from each state’s Department of Natural Resources.

Wisconsin has more people than Minnesota, and more deer hunters. The Badger State has sold an average of 642,000 gun hunting licenses each season since 2000; the Gopher State has averaged 461,000 for the same period.

But even accounting for the extra hunters, the trend remains. Since 2000, the rate of deer killed per Wisconsin hunter (0.7), outpaces the rate for Minnesota hunters (0.5).



Why?

It’s not the differing hunting regulations, say officials from each state. Wisconsin allows baiting in certain areas — a potential advantage to some hunters. But Wisconsin’s later season comes after deer mate — a potential disadvantage to hunters.

The difference is the habitat, biologists say. Wisconsin has better landscape for deer than Minnesota, according to Kevin Wallenfang, big game ecologist for the Wisconsin DNR, and Steve Merchant, director of the wildlife division for the Minnesota DNR.

TOO COLD AND FORESTED

“Half of Minnesota is above the northern third of Wisconsin that is forested habitat, where our deer densities tend to be lower,” Wallenfang said. “The habitat is not as good up there, and it’s colder. And winter is the big equalizer; (it) doesn’t matter how fantastic your habitat might be.”

While the notion of going “up north” holds for hunters in both states, the truth is that the deeper one gets into northern â pine â forests, the less hospitable the landscape is for deer.â Deer like woods, but they like oaks best — because of protein-rich acorns. The farther north you go, the fewer oaks.

Through logging and hunting, humans played a major role in changes that led to caribou disappearing, moose retreating and deer increasing. Humans continue to play a role today, although now deer benefit less, according to Wallenfang.

Before European settlement, Minnesota’s deer range ended along a line heading northwest from southern Chisago County to the northwest corner of the state, according to a 1993 analysis of Minnesota whitetails. To the north and east of that line were the ranges of moose and woodland caribou.

“Great big timber companies used to clear land and leave it open to public hunting,” he said, noting that open areas within pine forests support healthy deer numbers. “In both Wisconsin and Minnesota, many of those lands now have been chunked into smaller acres, sold off and are off-limits to hunting. But as far as the deer go, the lack of logging activity means more mature forests with fewer open areas.

“People buy the land for the trees, but they may not realize that mature forests aren’t the best habitat for wildlife, especially deer. There’s a human element at work here.”

Wallenfang said it’s not just the landscape that has changed over the past few decades. “We’ve got considerably more wolves in the northern forests than 30 years ago, and they play a part, as well,” he said.

TOO OPEN

The southern portions of the states differ too.

Much of central, southern and western Minnesota is more wide open, with little winter cover and oak trees to provide a natural winter food source, Merchant said.

“Look at percent forest by county and (Minnesota) has scores of counties with less than 15 percent forest or permanent cover,” Merchant said. “Wisconsin has none.”

Wallenfang echoed that observation: “When the crops come down in western Minnesota, what do the deer have? Even where we have farming, southern Wisconsin has a lot of hills and valleys that are still forested (with oaks), so the deer have places to go.”

Merchant said once you understand that a â western Minnesota cornfield with a line of cottonwoods doesn’t support high deer populations, it’s easy to see the difference between the two states.

“Much of Wisconsin is a perfect mix of ag and forest — like what southeast and west-central Minnesota looks like,” Merchant said. “If all of Minnesota looked like those two areas, we would have a bunch more deer. Look at Google Earth from 1,000 miles above and it tells that story.”

Topography plays a role, but perhaps only to blunt the human impact. Go back several decades, and Minnesota’s farms were smaller, often with more trees on the land, numerous studies of land use practices have noted. In short, the two states looked more similar from the air.

And from the view of the deer hunter.

Go back in time 40 years, and the Wisconsin deer advantage disappears.

In 1966, for example, Wisconsin hunters killed just over 116,000 deer. That same fall, Minnesota hunters killed nearly 115,000.

Dave Orrick can be reached at 651-228-5512. Follow him at twitter.com/OutdoorsNow.