Audit Push: Time To Act!

[Bureaucrat]

(SMSmith also posted this, but pulling it out and re-posting for added visibility.)

I also recommend emailing Representative Sondra Erickson. She is on the legislative audit commission and I believe her to be our best bet at having an ally in the room when this gets discussed in the committee that chooses what gets selected for audit.

[email protected]

-----------------------------------------------------------

A push for an external audit of the DNR has begun. Elected are being contacted and forwarded this information http://mnbowhunters.org/2014/08/14/is-your-elected-going-to-bat-for-the-states-deer-hunters/

----------------------------------------------------

Once you look it over, if you feel we are justified in seeking such an audit, I'd encourage you to:

*Contact your elected officials

*Include the above link

*Ask them if they will support the audit. If they will, forward that information to Brooks Johnson at [email protected]

Find your elected here http://www.gis.leg.mn/OpenLayers/districts/

To help gauge support, please use this thread to reply and say "I did it" and what response you got.

[smsmith]

Well done Bureaucrat

[hockeybc69]

Can anyone honestly read the info in the link that Bureaucrat posted and deny that there is a very blatant problem with deer management in MN?

[PurpleFloyd]

Depends on who you ask. As deer hunters obviously we want more, more, more. My guess is that many farmers, car insurance companies, gardeners and many motorcycle drivers would vote for fewer numbers.

Deer are a public resource and in the end if we want their numbers to be higher on a consistent basis it is the hunters that will have to do it. As I have said many times, we as hunters are asking and expecting the DNR to save us from ourselves. Think about that for a minute. It's a job they cannot possibly win.

The one thing that HAS to be embedded into any proposal is the fact that the state is very diverse and while some areas may indeed be underpopulated, other areas are doing fine and don't need additional restriction or regulation. Any restrictions or regulations must be target specific and not proposed as a statewide solution.

[smsmith]

Any restrictions or regulations must be target specific and not proposed as a statewide solution.

An audit won't make restrictions or regulations...it will make recommendations for the DNR to implement. I'd agree that narrowing management objectives would be a good idea.

[btheturkey]

The 2005 - 2007 stakeholders meetings called for a 9% herd decrease.

In 2004 we killed 290,000 deer.

In 2014 we may kill less than 120,000.

Why?

The audit will help answer the why?

[PurpleFloyd]

An audit won't make restrictions or regulations...it will make recommendations for the DNR to implement. I'd agree that narrowing management objectives would be a good idea.

I wasn't talking about the audit but rather the end game of those pushing for the audit.

In the end I just don't see it as a positive thing. I have a bit if experience with audit requests from my time in public life and they generally just consume precious time and resources that could have been used more constructively.

Jmho.

[smsmith]

Legitimate concerns PF. All I'll say is that after months of dealing with the DNR (and guys like Brooks having dealt with them for several years attempting to get changes made) its obvious to me that the only way we're going to get meaningful, long term changes/improvements to our deer management is via such an audit.

Deer are a valuable asset to this state. They need to be treated as such

[hockeybc69]

Quote:

The one thing that HAS to be embedded into any proposal is the fact that the state is very diverse and while some areas may indeed be underpopulated, other areas are doing fine and don't need additional restriction or regulation. Any restrictions or regulations must be target specific and not proposed as a statewide solution.

Absolutely!!

[PurpleFloyd]

Legitimate concerns PF. All I'll say is that after months of dealing with the DNR (and guys like Brooks having dealt with them for several years attempting to get changes made) its obvious to me that the only way we're going to get meaningful, long term changes/improvements to our deer management is via such an audit.

Deer are a valuable asset to this state. They need to be treated as such

I have heard that before when audits were requested. I just don't believe that it is a good tactic to achieve a goal of getting them to work with you or see things your way. My belief is that an audit should only be called for if criminal activity is suspected such as fraud,theft etc and I don't think that is being suggested is it?

I know numbers are down in your area but things like that happen. Heck, I am an avid ringneck hunter and after decades of marginal numbers we saw a dramatic increase in bird numbers around 2005. they were everywhere and I could take off work early, walk about any ditch and get a limit. Word got out and soon every patch of grass was getting walked by a group of guys in designer gear driving a Suburban from a Metro area dealership. Then we had a bad winter, a bad spring and several bad years have followed. I can't blame the DNR because interest peaked with the higher numbers and the birds are a public resource so i understand any other hunter has just as much right to harvest the birds as I do. They will bounce back in time, until then I just shoot less birds and concentrate on watching the dogs do what they do.

One other point about the hayday in the 2000's is that deer densities that get too high set a favorable environment for CWD. That is a very disruptive disease and brings a lot of issues with it so IMHO we are better keeping numbers low enough to where this is never a potential problem. Keep in mind one of the driving forces behind the herd reduction policies during that time was the CWD outbreaks and the steps they took to make sure it didn't spread.

[hockeybc69]

Did you read the data in the link that Bureaucrat posted?

[Bureaucrat]

Bad years happen in all sorts of species, and they can usually be explained. But deer, birds, and walleyes all boom and bust for completely different reasons. The reasons suggested for the poor deer "harvest" have ranged from wind to crop progress. Since last fall, it has evolved from theories about poor "harvest" to an admission of a poor "population."

Many of us believe we are in the middle to late stages of a collapse in the deer herd.

We're advocating an audit to help the DNR review the rules and methods they use to manage the deer herd, without any heavy influence from private interests. The auditor is the only entity that doesn't have shareholders, land owners, underwriters, non-profits, or any other entity with skewed power to muddy the process.

Don't forget where we ended last season. It was all over in the Outdoor News that the poor numbers were just because it was windy and there was too much corn standing. Otherwise there wasn't any official talk that a population problem even existed. We've come a long way already with BO zones and reduced doe tags, but that won't fix the inconsistencies in the population modeling and goal setting process.

[PurpleFloyd]

How about the inconsistencies in the hunting community itself?

I encourage you to go back and look at the threads in this very forum from last year and back a few from there. You will see in thread after thread that the doe got absolutely no respect and was the go to suggestion for anyone looking to fill the freezer in an effort to save the young bucks. While the DNR was able to limit doe harvest during firearms season the muzzie and now hunters could take a doe just by purchasing a license. Lots of guys bought the multi zone or whatever license it was so they could bypass the lottery system.

In the end it seems as the best thing to audit is us hunters as we seem to be the one factor outside of nature that impacts the population. The DNR just ends up being the scapegoat when things don't line up. If the population in some areas is on the verge of collapse the hunters in that area should be getting together and calling off their hunts for a year to give the population a chance to rebound.

[smsmith]

In the end it seems as the best thing to audit is us hunters as we seem to be the one factor outside of nature that impacts the population. The DNR just ends up being the scapegoat when things don't line up. If the population in some areas is on the verge of collapse the hunters in that area should be getting together and calling off their hunts for a year to give the population a chance to rebound.

I do love the theme of personal responsibility PF. The problem is that the vast majority of hunters don't have the background information necessary to make such decisions. That information has been controlled by our DNR. Year after year they put out the PR that there's "about a million" deer in the state. Average Joe deer hunters have trusted the DNR to be doing the job they are tasked with. The way I see it is that the DNR has betrayed the public trust in order to maintain or increase revenue from deer license sales. Like it or not, politics in some form another influences everything in this country. Deer hunters need to use that process to insure our passion is protected for generations.

[BLACKJACK]

How about the inconsistencies in the hunting community itself?

You will see in thread after thread that the doe got absolutely no respect and was the go to suggestion for anyone looking to fill the freezer in an effort to save the young bucks.

The DNR just ends up being the scapegoat when things don't line up.

Some good points PF.

I think with the lower number of doe permits the deer will respond in a few years, provided we have a couple of average winters. Then PF's points about hunters and treating does like vermin in the quest for big antlers will really have to be looked at.

[Farmsfulltime]

I agree strongly it is time to act very easy to do use the link above to contact your representative and express to them your feelings on the DNR if they are doing a good job with what they have to work with and time and weather will fix the perceived deer problem express that to them . Im sure they would love to hear some other view points of the voters .

[bowhunternw]

Give it a rest. What a thankless job. Sure I don't agree with everything that they do but still think that MN has a lot to offer that other states don't.

[smsmith]

but still think that MN has a lot to offer that other states don't.

Along the lines of deer hunting?

[Farmsfulltime]

Have said that over several days they are wrong no matter what they do some want more, some want bigger , some want more horns , some want it all , The DNR has been doing an excellent job under difficult conditions an audit will not change the weather or how hunters hunt or harvest . It is time to act contact your representative and tell them what your thoughts are

[PierBridge]

Well at least we all agree on what needs to be done...

[btheturkey]

To summarize the example used calling for the audit, in 2006 the DNR told the hunters of zone 225 there were 24 dpsm prefawn, and a 25% reduction was scheduled. That same year they did a ground survey and calculated 7 dpsm. Then they flew it a year later and the aerial indictated 8 dpsm. THen they changed the prefawn dpsm to 15, the goal to 11, and walked away and continued to sell 5 doe tags per hunter.

You simply can not argue the short stick the hunters of this zone were given. And it happened all across the state. Our 9% scheduled herd reduction has gone past 50%. An audit is needed to sort out the malfeasance whether it is intentional or through ignorance. The hunters of MN deserve a better system.

[SmellEsox]

Some good points PF.

I think with the lower number of doe permits the deer will respond in a few years, provided we have a couple of average winters. Then PF's points about hunters and treating does like vermin in the quest for big antlers will really have to be looked at.

I think it was more DNR making them vermin by offering 5 -7 antlerless permits for many areas. Blaming it on big buck hunters is ridiculous.

[Jameson]

good conversation people! I support the MDDI not because the deer hunting is so terrible where I hunt now, but because I had to hunt most the rest of the state to find out where not to hunt.

...You will see in thread after thread that the doe got absolutely no respect and was the go to suggestion for anyone looking to fill the freezer in an effort to save the young bucks....

Had to chuckle at this quote (sorry PF.) A deer hunter looking to fill the freezer and save young bucks only has so many options, and large bucks isn't really one of them here. What else were they suppose to shoot?

And then the best part is that it should be left up to the hunters in the area to figure out on their own if they should hunt, when they can't even figure out what to correctly shoot when they can hunt.

internet gold

[Bureaucrat]

SMSmith is right. I was one of those ill-informed hunters years ago that believed we had never ending herds of deer. I took my share of does because I was convinced there was no risk of herd depletion.

Where we're at today, we cannot hope that everyone is on the same page and decides to become conservationists. The goals and regs need to be firmed up so the deer herd doesn't suffer the tragedy of the commons.

[DaveT]

I'm so pleased that this movement is gaining traction, it's long overdue.

The DNR has gotten fat and lazy selling doe tags and raking in cash. They realized that it didn't matter if there weren't enough deer for all those tags, us idiots would still buy the tags AND their talk about standing corn, wind, etc. and line up to buy them again next year. It didn't matter what the densities were, it didn't matter if there were or weren't enough deer to support the tags sold because we kept purchasing them regardless. Now their hands off management style has finally caught up to them.

I fully expect them to raise license fees soon to make up for all of the lost revenue they've gotten used to. This is why they need this audit. They are about to start charging us more for a product that has gotten considerably worse. Some of you seem to think they do a fine job and anybody who complains is just a bad, lazy hunter. Maybe so. Maybe the audit will prove that and then you can gloat on this forum about it for months. Do me a favor and get behind this thing if only for the potential of future anonymous internet grandstanding.

[smsmith]

If you want to help push the audit forward, simply copy/paste the below, add your legislator's name to the top, and your name to the bottom of this email and add [email protected] to the cc so he can add the elected to the list. Forward any replies you receive from your elected to Brooks using the basecamp addy^^-

ELECTED NAME,

Many in MN are very concerned with the decline in deer numbers in the last 10 years, and in working with the DNR have discovered they either don't know or don't believe the herd has been taken back so far.

Please review the following information, and let us know if you can support the audit described that will be up for review next session.

http://mnbowhunters.org/2014/08/14/is-your-elected-going-to-bat-for-the-states-deer-hunters/

Thank you for your attention, the residents of MN can use your support on this issue.

YOUR NAME

You can find who represents you and how to contact them here: http://www.gis.leg.mn/OpenLayers/districts/

[hockeybc69]

My representative has happily agreed to be added to the list to support the audit.

Add one more to the list.

[daydreamer]

Complete. Let's hope for positive responses. I know for sure, one of my rep's is a deer hunter...

[BLACKJACK]

I'm kind of on the fence here. If the DNR has been doing a good job then an audit can't hurt. On the other hand they'll spend a lot of time and money on an audit that could be used for other purposes.

Also kind of on the fence here as to whether there really is a deer problem. I grew up hunting in whatever zone Meeker county was/is now, its always had a low deer population, lots of big black farm land, so to anybody thats concerned about low deer populations, welcome to my world. You realize that you may only see two or three deer on a weekend, if you want some venison you better shoot one. Doe permits have always been scarce, a party of four might have only one doe permit.

I've been trying to read the posts, understand what the problem is, but after a couple of hard winters I'm still not convinced there is a problem. Still on the fence.

[Farmsfulltime]

Sounds a lot like deer hunting but it looks like there might be an audit maybe the DNR would appreciate some help then it wont be all their fault they can share it with everyone else that's an expert . if the audit goes thru I cannot see how it will help . just a different set of faces at the table