OFFICIAL 2026 Deer Gun Lottery

[Rowdie]

So can we get a 2nd tag?

 

[D-Racer]

I got me one of them also.

 

[Rowdie]

In 3F2 there's a lot of muley doe. Not sure why ND doesn't just make a buck tag ANY deer, then a guy can opt for some meat last day if no shooter buck is taken. That's how SD does it

 

[8andcounting]

In 3F2 there's a lot of muley doe. Not sure why ND doesn't just make a buck tag ANY deer, then a guy can opt for some meat last day if no shooter buck is taken. That's how SD does it

I don’t think there should be a doe shot in ND for many many years …….

 

[gonefshn]

In 3F2 there's a lot of muley doe. Not sure why ND doesn't just make a buck tag ANY deer, then a guy can opt for some meat last day if no shooter buck is taken. That's how SD does it

Move!

 

[Jiffy]

Why would he want to move to ND?

 

[lunkerslayer]

Nada for me again, looking forward to hunting minnesota for the first year this will be my 4th year in a row without a tag in one of the units with lots of habitat in the eastern part of the state.

 

[Vollmer]

0-4 in our house

 

[Kurtr]

Threads like this confirms moving back to Sodak in 02 was the right one

 

[8andcounting]

Threads like this confirms moving back to Sodak in 02 was the right one

your correct

 

[Bed Wetter]

your correct

You’re*

 

[Tymurrey]

Something I’ve been contemplating is what if most of North Dakota was managed for mule deer and not whitetails. Mule deer seemed to have spread and thrived after ehd hit. They are less susceptible to ehd and to hard winters. It also seems they need less heavy cover habitat and do well in ag land and pasture land. Maybe we take a play from Montana and manage for mule deer in traditionally whitetail areas too, habitat loss is real and what we are doing isn’t working. Get rid of the any deer tags and issue whitetail only in those units. Whitetail habitat will not ever come back to what it was without serious federal funding or changes so let’s adapt and try something new instead of trying to save a sinking ship.

 

[Duckslayer100]

Something I’ve been contemplating is what if most of North Dakota was managed for mule deer and not whitetails. Mule deer seemed to have spread and thrived after ehd hit. They are less susceptible to ehd and to hard winters. It also seems they need less heavy cover habitat and do well in ag land and pasture land. Maybe we take a play from Montana and manage for mule deer in traditionally whitetail areas too, habitat loss is real and what we are doing isn’t working. Get rid of the any deer tags and issue whitetail only in those units. Whitetail habitat will not ever come back to what it was without serious federal funding or changes so let’s adapt and try something new instead of trying to save a sinking ship.

Interesting idea. Is Mule deer habitat really that great east of the Missouri River? I thought traditionally they were always found more readily west of the Mighty Mo. I know the eastern fringe of the coteau area seems Mule-y, but the RRV would be tough country for them.

 

[labhunter66]

Can quit issuing doe tags

That does no good without the habitat to support the extra animals. It's not rocket science.

 

[wslayer]

And any additional habitat that is dotted across the landscape will be done by landowners, which will basically be off limits to Tom, Dick, and Harry anyways. If I ever win the lottery, I will contribute but otherwise it just isn't feasible.

 

[Callem'In]

Interesting idea. Is Mule deer habitat really that great east of the Missouri River? I thought traditionally they were always found more readily west of the Mighty Mo. I know the eastern fringe of the coteau area seems Mule-y, but the RRV would be tough country for them.

I know of small pockets of them in 2I and in 2B and they seem to be doing alright as far as maintaining numbers. I do not see many with big racks though, so might be a difference in nutrients.

 

[Coyote Hunter]

That does no good without the habitat to support the extra animals. It's not rocket science.

This is still an asinine argument. There is habitat out there for a hell of a lot more whitetail deer than we are seeing on the landscape. I agree that if we want to see deer tag numbers back in the 100,000 range from the early 2000s, we need more habitat. However, EHD has wiped out the population, and a fair amount of the state's whitetail habitat is an absolute ghost town for deer because there are no deer available to repopulate these areas. Then we are mowing down the few does that are actually in those areas. Are you telling me that there isn't habitat up and down the Missouri River from the Garrison Dam to the South Dakota border? There is a hell of a lot of habitat, and there are very few whitetails in those areas because EHD wiped them out a few years back... but they keep issuing doe tags there too. If they had immediately eliminated doe tags the year or two following the major die-off, those numbers would be completely rebounded.

The NDGF argues that they can't not issue doe tags because some areas have an abundance of deer. Then get creative and break up the units into smaller units and stop offering doe tags in areas that are void of deer. A few things have to be done to rebound the deer population...
#1 Allow more does to live through deer season in areas that are void of deer, so they can produce more fawns and rebound the population.
#2 Create more habitat, so the deer holding capacity can increase across the state.

Rant over...

 

[luvcatchingbass]

But

That does no good without the habitat to support the extra animals. It's not rocket science.

It does help in areas with habitat.

 

[luvcatchingbass]

This is still an asinine argument. There is habitat out there for a hell of a lot more whitetail deer than we are seeing on the landscape. I agree that if we want to see deer tag numbers back in the 100,000 range from the early 2000s, we need more habitat. However, EHD has wiped out the population, and a fair amount of the state's whitetail habitat is an absolute ghost town for deer because there are no deer available to repopulate these areas. Then we are mowing down the few does that are actually in those areas. Are you telling me that there isn't habitat up and down the Missouri River from the Garrison Dam to the South Dakota border? There is a hell of a lot of habitat, and there are very few whitetails in those areas because EHD wiped them out a few years back... but they keep issuing doe tags there too. If they had immediately eliminated doe tags the year or two following the major die-off, those numbers would be completely rebounded.

The NDGF argues that they can't not issue doe tags because some areas have an abundance of deer. Then get creative and break up the units into smaller units and stop offering doe tags in areas that are void of deer. A few things have to be done to rebound the deer population...
#1 Allow more does to live through deer season in areas that are void of deer, so they can produce more fawns and rebound the population.
#2 Create more habitat, so the deer holding capacity can increase across the state.

Rant over...

Couldn't say it much better myself. A good buddy and I had another very good conversation last night about all of this

 

[Obi-Wan]

This is still an asinine argument. There is habitat out there for a hell of a lot more whitetail deer than we are seeing on the landscape. I agree that if we want to see deer tag numbers back in the 100,000 range from the early 2000s, we need more habitat. However, EHD has wiped out the population, and a fair amount of the state's whitetail habitat is an absolute ghost town for deer because there are no deer available to repopulate these areas. Then we are mowing down the few does that are actually in those areas. Are you telling me that there isn't habitat up and down the Missouri River from the Garrison Dam to the South Dakota border? There is a hell of a lot of habitat, and there are very few whitetails in those areas because EHD wiped them out a few years back... but they keep issuing doe tags there too. If they had immediately eliminated doe tags the year or two following the major die-off, those numbers would be completely rebounded.

The NDGF argues that they can't not issue doe tags because some areas have an abundance of deer. Then get creative and break up the units into smaller units and stop offering doe tags in areas that are void of deer. A few things have to be done to rebound the deer population...
#1 Allow more does to live through deer season in areas that are void of deer, so they can produce more fawns and rebound the population.
#2 Create more habitat, so the deer holding capacity can increase across the state.

Rant over...

Not sure they will do the same this year but last year they still issued doe depredation tags for S of Bismarck in the Briardale area. The deer population in that area is probably 10% of what is was 5 yrs and idiots are still shooting does in that area.