Audit Push: Time To Act!

[hockeybc69]

Quote:

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.

Blackjack

A perfect example is permit area 221.

They did a winter aerial count this year in that area.

As Lou Cornicelli stated in the Cambridge meeting that I sat and listened to, he said, "the aerial survey methods they use is the gold standard in population estimates."

They counted less than 8 dpsm in that unit, but since the number was so low they are throwing out the data.

So they wanted to throw out the data they collected via the gold standard method, and wanted to keep the permit area as an intensive harvest area.

That is just flat out B S in my opinion, and all the other hunters that were in that room that evening were in agreement. There was quite an uproar about it throwing out data because it didnt meet what they wanted to see.

Thats one example of a very poorly managed area. And they are not alone.

I will say that I dont think the sky is falling statewide by any means. But I also feel very strongly that things could be done much better. So why not let an audit take place and see what good it could do.

Wisconsin did a deer management audit for 150k a few years back. Thats a drop in the bucket. If things can be fine tuned and hunter satisfaction is increased, the DNR would make up that 150k in one season with ease.

As it stands the DNR is losing money each year on deer license sales over the past handful of years. Fix things where they need fixin' and that audit cost is a wash in no time.

[jentz]

I'm with blackjack,I live in Kandiyohi county also.The doe permits were passed out to much That I disagree with blackjack.I watched 2 seperate herds go from 20-22 each down to 10 total left from 44-46 deer in 2005.I drop alfalfa hay around Feb and they herd in the yard.They bed down out my back door.Lost 3/4ths of population in 9 years.They have little cover other than cattails its been turned to black dirt everywhere!Few trees and the fence ines are nonexistant.fields are farmed fence to fence with no wind breaks anymore! Progress is a win lose situation!All the hunters I know want more doe permits Then complain there are no deer!! The deer come from does!! Give them a break and dont cater to the voices who say more doe permits.I dont gun hunt arahery only.My observations tell me we're taking to many breeders!!

[icehole10]

The problem does lie within us hunters, but the DNR has made it easier for this sort of thing to happen. IMO, longer seasons is one of the problems. When I was a kid we got four days to gun hunt, rain, snow, hot or cold, it didn't matter, we were out there. Now we have anywhere from 2-3 weeks of gun/rifle and then 3 more weeks of muzzie hunting. There is so much pressure on these animals.

[LandDr]

"little cover"

"farmed fence row to fence row"

"few trees"

Not to just pick your quotes Jentz...but others are saying similar things in other areas...and some want to put more deer into areas that already don't have the carrying capacities to take care of the deer that are already there?

I'm confused also. Go ahead and work on the DNR...I agree 100%...and the list to audit doesn't just stop with the deer herd...better include pheasants, ducks, how they treat license agents, why is the govt selling trees and seed in direct competition with tax paying job providing businesses, grazing WMAs, WMAs being managed for prairie species rather than game species, and on and on and on.

Bottom line is...if you own private land, it is in your control...not the DNR's. If you hunt on private land, it is in your control...not the DNR's. If you want more deer, pheasants, ducks, etc...then do something about it instead of blaming the DNR. The DNR is REALLY hard to change...but it is VERY EASY to change your land.

Although more difficult, putting pressure on the govt and non-profits to stop managing for prairie species if you want game species. These groups are pushing prairie to no end...while our game species are struggling to make it through the winter. "Dead Hens Don't Lay Eggs!" You can have all the nesting cover you want...plant prairie to no end...but if you can't get the hen through the winter, it is all for nothing! Same goes for the stress that deer go through during the winter. (cougars and wolves not included in this discuss because as I have stated before that I have no solution for those...or one that is legal anyway.)

As I have stated before, at one sitting in the stand I will see 20 to 30 deer. Out of that, usually 5 or so are bucks. Morning or evening, it doesn't matter...however I usually see more in the evening. If the DNR let landowners around me shoot 5 does each, I don't believe it would have a significant affect on the deer on my property. Currently, landowners are allowed to shoot one doe if they receive a lottery tag...has been that way for years. This also has not changed the deer herd on my property. What has significantly changed the deer, pheasants and ducks on my property is what I have personally done to my property. Some people can do more or less with their property...but the bottom line is that you have more control over private land in MN than the DNR does. And there is a HUGE difference in "Habitat" and "Habitat done correctly". Habitat done incorrectly can be more damaging than not doing anything at all.

[BLACKJACK]

Now we have anywhere from 2-3 weeks of gun/rifle and then 3 more weeks of muzzie hunting. There is so much pressure on these animals.

Agreed!!! I was thinking about the same thing since my last post, a lot of guys like big bucks yet they have to survive the gauntlet of a longer gun season AND longer muzzleloader season, with better, easier to use, and more accurate weapons/muzzleloaders. Unless they have excellent cover its hard to see how they can survive. Then the big buck guys start beating the APR drum which promotes the shooting of more does and we have one very vicious cycle.

[BLACKJACK]

"the aerial survey methods they use is the gold standard in population estimates."

They counted less than 8 dpsm in that unit, but since the number was so low they are throwing out the data.

hockeybc69, I had to chuckle when I saw those two statements, going from 'the gold standard' to throwing them out. Maybe an audit is justified with carp like that.

The next question is what will it cost and who pays for it, and how do you find an independent auditor? If it was 150 grand a few years ago it would probably by 250-300 grand now. Not chump change.

[BLACKJACK]

I think it was more DNR making them vermin by offering 5 -7 antlerless permits for many areas. .

[smsmith]

I know a guy in 221 with some fantastic habitat. Think he has 180 acres with right around half in row crops. Some incredibly dense cedar thickets and dozens (and dozens) of fruit trees. He's a habitat junkie and has been for over 20 years.

He has about a 3 acre foodplot that is planted to corn most years. That corn isn't consumed by the following year. Why? Because he's been in Intensive harvest for years and years.

While you may not THINK your property would be impacted by years (and years) of Intensive harvest LandDr...I think you may be mistaken. I suppose if you have a buffer of neighboring land owners who refused to take many antlerless deer and have no public ground for miles (or some other type of built in sanctuary) then perhaps your place would remain the way it is. Without some type of large, built in sanctuary, a 160 acre piece of ground will eventually be drained of deer by Intensive harvest. Comparing your results in a Lottery area with the results in an Intensive area are apples to oranges.

[BLACKJACK]

grazing WMAs, WMAs being managed for prairie species rather than game species, and on and on and on.

These groups are pushing prairie to no end...while our game species are struggling to make it through the winter. "Dead Hens Don't Lay Eggs!" You can have all the nesting cover you want...plant prairie to no end...but if you can't get the hen through the winter, it is all for nothing! Same goes for the stress that deer go through during the winter.

landdr, you and I live right in the heart of their "Prairie Initiative", we can see the devastating results of their lack of management for game species. I always say when I see the Fish and Wildlife service takes over another area "The good news is that it won't be going under the plow, the bad news is that there will be less pheasants".

[LandDr]

It's not just USFW...it is the DNR and the pheasant groups also. Sorry to say...but they are ruining our game species. Fact is, when you plant nothing but prairie (no thermal cover and no food), then you are either saying "we are hoping for a good winter" (which rarely in fact ever comes) or "it is OK to just see a few pheasants".

If you own land and want more deer, pheasants and ducks, I would highly recommend not taking the "free" advice of the govt and non-profits. LOL...all I can think of is that show from a long time ago..."We are from the government and we are here to help."

[mntatonka]

How many people really shot 5 deer?? A few young turks to prove they could do it, and a few meat hunters, but I think the vast majority of hunters shoot 1 or 2 deer.

Across the state, Lou figured it was less than a dozen that TAGGED 5 deer or more. How many shot 5 is a different topic.

[hockeybc69]

Quote:

If you own land and want more deer, pheasants and ducks, I would highly recommend not taking the "free" advice of the govt and non-profits.

Thats your opinion LandDr.

Their free advice includes many of the same govt programs that you use with your business as well.

I have worked with many people from various govt agencies over the years. Sure maybe some of the free advice wasnt as good as it could be, but some of it is probably better advice than a private entity would recommend as well.

To lay out a blanket statement and say free advice is worthless, is just pure talk.

I wish more people would research and take the free advice. Sure beats people sitting and doing nothing at all.

There are a lot of very good people working for govt agencies and there are some duds. But the same can be said of a lot of private businesses too.

I highly recommend any landowners to contact your local NRCS, FSA, USFWS, DNR, etc. Talk to them. Get that free advice at least. Dont sit around and wish things would get better.

[LandDr]

Sorry...misstated that...since my advice\plan\design is also free. I should have stated more as their "agenda" advice...rather than what you want as a landowner to meet your goals and objectives.

It's like having the IRS do your taxes.

[bowhunternw]

I would much rather spend the money on buying wma's or habitat improvements than blowing it on audits and spending millions on aerial surveys.

[smsmith]

I'd much rather spend 100% of deer license revenue on actually managing deer than the 13% that was spent last year (with another 11% carried forward)

[PurpleFloyd]

Can someone please explain this audit that is being proposed?

What exactly happens with an audit like this?

Who does it?

how is it done?

How do they know when they do or don't find a problem?

What are you specifically looking for?

If you find it, then what happens?

What happens if you don't find what you think you are going to find?

Who is the person directly in charge of the procedures?

Is there a disciplinary process that can be triggered in said DNR official is found negligent or incompetent?

Secondly-

How does our system differ from that of other states?

Is there a model currently being used somewhere by someone that is superior to the model being used here?

What will the audit cost?

Who is analyzing the audit and what credentials do they have?

How will the findings of the audit be distributed to the public and who is in charge of drafting it? What makes them qualified?

[PurpleFloyd]

I know a guy in 221 with some fantastic habitat. Think he has 180 acres with right around half in row crops. Some incredibly dense cedar thickets and dozens (and dozens) of fruit trees. He's a habitat junkie and has been for over 20 years.

He has about a 3 acre foodplot that is planted to corn most years. That corn isn't consumed by the following year. Why? Because he's been in Intensive harvest for years and years.

While you may not THINK your property would be impacted by years (and years) of Intensive harvest LandDr...I think you may be mistaken. I suppose if you have a buffer of neighboring land owners who refused to take many antlerless deer and have no public ground for miles (or some other type of built in sanctuary) then perhaps your place would remain the way it is. Without some type of large, built in sanctuary, a 160 acre piece of ground will eventually be drained of deer by Intensive harvest. Comparing your results in a Lottery area with the results in an Intensive area are apples to oranges.

Where in the area is their refuge? With high hunting pressure deer need a place to go to get away from said pressure (Read that hunters)if they are expected to survive.

We live in the black dirt desert and around here refuge might be a clump of grass on a fence line, a gully in a field not visible from a road, a grove that is posted no hunting or even remote drainage ditches in the middle of a section. This is where the deer head when they are pressured. You need that have a place like that as well if there is high pressure or the deer will have no place to hide during the season.

Actually, around here the best population tool we have is standing corn. You would be surprised how many deer you can pack into the last 12 rows of a corn field . During years with an early harvest we generally have very good years in terms of harvest. During years when the harvest is late and there is standing corn, we harvest many fewer deer on average and especially fewer bucks. If you were to plant 3-6 acres of standing corn in your land and not hunt it at all, I guarantee you will have a decent herd of deer and if you would plant 10-12 and not harvest until spring you would have no problems with deer numbers. If you had this much corn, didn't hunt it during the season and you didn't have deer around, then your problem might just be aliens or bigfoot. If you have that much corn and don't hunt it and aren't seeing deer they are probably packed in there having a party.

[laker1]

Its a tough life to survive in open farm country from hunting,suppose some years the the only survivors travel to private land not hunted?

[hockeybc69]

Quote:

Can someone please explain this audit that is being proposed?

What exactly happens with an audit like this?

Who does it?

how is it done?

How do they know when they do or don't find a problem?

What are you specifically looking for?

If you find it, then what happens?

What happens if you don't find what you think you are going to find?

Who is the person directly in charge of the procedures?

Is there a disciplinary process that can be triggered in said DNR official is found negligent or incompetent?

Secondly-

How does our system differ from that of other states?

Is there a model currently being used somewhere by someone that is superior to the model being used here?

What will the audit cost?

Who is analyzing the audit and what credentials do they have?

How will the findings of the audit be distributed to the public and who is in charge of drafting it? What makes them qualified?

Maybe we should just give it a couple more years with current course and direction before we act?? Maybe we will get lucky.

I honestly dont care about the answers to your questions because of the simple fact that the way things are going now, we are headed into some very troublesome times.

Do you think without the pressure from the public over the past 6-12 months contributed to the huge cuts in available tags to deer hunters?

I think its clear the voices of the hunters have been heard and if the DNR truly believed in what they are doing, we wouldnt have seen much for changes at all.

They have their backs against some walls in areas and now realize it.

Lets expose the problems and stop hearing the excuses for lower harvest because of standing crops and poor weather conditions every year.

[PurpleFloyd]

Maybe we should just give it a couple more years with current course and direction before we act?? Maybe we will get lucky.

I honestly dont care about the answers to your questions because of the simple fact that the way things are going now, we are headed into some very troublesome times.

Do you think without the pressure from the public over the past 6-12 months contributed to the huge cuts in available tags to deer hunters?

I think its clear the voices of the hunters have been heard and if the DNR truly believed in what they are doing, we wouldnt have seen much for changes at all.

They have their backs against some walls in areas and now realize it.

Lets expose the problems and stop hearing the excuses for lower harvest because of standing crops and poor weather conditions every year.

How in the world are you going to expose problems if you don't even want to know what the audit is going to do, who is going to do it and how it is going to get done?

Good grief, yeah, lets just throw money and time at something we don't even care enough about to understand and then expect it to be fixed without even knowing what is getting fixed or who is fixing it. Your plan reminds me of the Obamacare vote- You have to vote for it before you can read it

Secondly and somewhat interestingly you state we are headed for troubling times, yet you acknowledge the DNR has already cut back on the doe tags they are issuing which, if I am not mistaken has become the new cause of the day, replacing last years "let the small buck pass, shoot a doe instead" cause? And we wonder why the DNR has a hard time keeping up with what the hunters want.

Personally, with the cuts in permits I believe the herd will bounce back nicely within a few years.

As long as we are talking about reducing the does shot, I think it would be proper for the bow hunter groups to propose that they too are included in the lottery rather than getting to shoot whatever sex they choose.

Unless the DNR puts all hunters into the doe lottery there is no way of tracking how many does are harvested and no way to set definitive levels of does to be harvested. Put everyone in the same boat.

[hockeybc69]

Lets ensure long term change in management. Not just a blip on the radar because they feel the heat today and lowered permits due to a greatly increased public pressure this year.

Do you think that slashing permits this year will fix things in the long term?

You ask a lot of questions, but what do you think the answers are to all those questions you asked. I am curious.

Why do you think the audit would be a problem? When was the last time the DNR was audited? Would an audit expose areas that could improve the way the DNR works today? If the DNR audit found errors in their ways, would it lead to an improved DNR which could result in more revenue for the DNR?

I have just as many questions as you do.

Status quo is not the answer any longer.

Change is never easy. The time for change is now.

[hockeybc69]

Quote:

As long as we are talking about reducing the does shot, I think it would be proper for the bow hunter groups to propose that they too are included in the lottery rather than getting to shoot whatever sex they choose.

We are not lottery. We are hunters choice where I live and where we hunt in Ottertail County.

Dont worry, I already have told everyone that hunts our land, zero antlerless deer this year except my daughter who is hunting her first year at 12 years old.

We are well aware of the problems and willing to step up to help out. You are preaching to the choir here.

[Bureaucrat]

Purple Floyd, I'll bite:

What exactly happens with an audit like this?

First, questions get answered. For example: Why would you move forward with a goal setting process assuming 25 DPSM when you just did a survey that only showed you had 8? Why would you set a reduction goal based on 25 when you only have 8? Second, methods could be reviewed. Wisconsin partners with schools, citizens, conservation groups and land owners to gather data and camera observations. Our DNR for the most part does not, at least not to the extent Wisconsin does. Third, data on collisions, crop damage, forestry impact could be unbiasedly analyzed.

Who does it?

The legislative auditor. It's about the only thing they do. They audit government programs and agencies. To learn more about the Legislative Auditor, please visit http://www.auditor.leg.state.mn.us/mission.htm

how is it done?

That's a great question for the Legislative Auditor. I wouldn't get too bogged down in the "Inside Baseball" of it. They tackle lots of issues that span the entire spectrum of government operations. You can visit this site within the Auditor site that discusses programs and agency evaluation: http://www.auditor.leg.state.mn.us/ped/resmeth.htm

How do they know when they do or don't find a problem?

Harvest records and discarded population data can be compared against prior years data to analyze herd impact vs regulation changes as well as other stimuli that have impacted the population and harvest levels.

What are you specifically looking for?

Answers to questions that don't add up. How can we keep up such liberal harvest limits when there aren't deer there? Some stability in population. We all realize there will be ups and downs, but wild swings in population need to be moderated with faster action on hunting regulations, tag allotments, and goal setting.

If you find it, then what happens?

That's a question for the governor and the legislature and the commissioner of the DNR. They are the stewards and oversight of these resources. They need to deal with it. If they don't, then the voters need to.

What happens if you don't find what you think you are going to find?

Then apparently all is good and this shall be the new normal. I'll be canning deer tags instead of venison.

Who is the person directly in charge of the procedures?

The Legislative Auditor would make those decisions and appoint a person or team to conduct the audit. http://www.auditor.leg.state.mn.us/ped/resmeth.htm

Is there a disciplinary process that can be triggered in said DNR official is found negligent or incompetent?

The DNR Commissioner is appointed by the governor. How would we deal with any other department head that may not be performing to expectation? Is that reason enough to not investigate why the deer herd is disappearing?

Secondly-

How does our system differ from that of other states?

This is a terrific question that could be asked an answered by the legislative auditor.

Is there a model currently being used somewhere by someone that is superior to the model being used here?

Another terrific question that could be answered by the Legislative Auditor. I hope that they would talk with wildlife managers from Wisconsin, Iowa, and Illinois to find out how they manage their herds, conduct surveys, set goals, and manage party hunting, cross tagging, hunting or not hunting the rut etc.

What will the audit cost?

Immaterial. The Office of the Legislative Auditor exists for the exact purpose of government program evaluation. They are the watchdog and partner of the people and legislature. Minnesota spends around fifty to sixty billion dollars a year. If they were not evaluating the management of the state deer herd management, they would be evaluating something else? Is this important right now? Here's the last few audits they completed:

I am certain the council on Asian-Pacific Americans, noise barriers, prison healthcare , and road materials are very important. But the state deer herd should be at least on an equal footing with these issues.

Who is analyzing the audit and what credentials do they have?

The audits are presented to the Legislative Audit Commission, the legislature, governor, and public. You don't need credentials to analyze the audit. The job of the Auditor is to make it understandable to decision makers that are charged with broad government management like the governor and legislture.

How will the findings of the audit be distributed to the public and who is in charge of drafting it? What makes them qualified?

The results of all audits are available to the public in PDF format on the site of the Legislative Auditor. You can find all past audits at: http://www.auditor.leg.state.mn.us/ped/stud-sub.htm Also, the Auditor usually holds a press conference or issues a press release announcing the findings of the audit along with a summary evaluation. Members of the Legislative Audit Commission are also briefed on the findings of the audit. As to drafting and what makes them qualified, again, this is the only job of the Legislative Auditor. I often wonder how they can do such a great job with such a broad range of topics, but they do, and they have a long history of being very good at their jobs.

[PurpleFloyd]

Thank you sir.

I will start off by saying that I do agree that the DNR should be using the best possible methods for collecting and using data on the deer populations. However, I am not convinced this is the best method to use to get quick results. Basically they just give a short, broad overview and present them, it is then up to the legislature to take that short evaluation and do something with it.

As a bureaucrat you probably know that to get anything done, the earliest you could hope for is the 2015 audit to get results if you are lucky enough to get selected and then you need to get that to the legislators, to the DNR committee etc. Probably looking at the 2017 season at the earliest.

Hunters are looking for quicker results than that and I think it is important to explain the process, the results of similar audits, and what expectations can be. This is the reason I bring it up as I believe grass roots efforts with the DNR would be quicker and give better results.

I am not sure that links are appropriate to use on this forum but this is a link to a recent full report.

Audit

[smsmith]

This is the reason I bring it up as I believe grass roots efforts with the DNR would be quicker and give better results.

If you discover a way to get significant numbers of deer hunters off the couch, out of their boats, or out of the fish houses and get involved....I'm all ears.

Grass roots effort...that's exactly what MDDI is. We've met with the DNR, we've made recommendations, we've gotten a number of folks to get involved.

A massive grass roots effort (like 50K deer hunters) could possibly lead to what you suggest. The MDDI is open to all...no membership fee...want to know what's going on, make sure to email Brooks at [email protected] so you can get on the email list. Information is sent out frequently (unlike the large, state based, paid membership - deer hunter group I belong to ). MDDI is always looking for folks who want to get involved and contribute to the effort.

As for quicker results...do you think the results we've seen so far would have happened without the MDDI pushing MDHA and the DNR?

[hockeybc69]

If more mismanagement examples help anyone on the fence, here is another real world one.

Permit area 240

2007 stakeholders meeting the DNR estimated the deer herd at 19 dpsm and to stabilize the population at that level.

Fast forward to 2013 and the deer population estimate was 18 dpsm.

Nice job DNR. You stabilized just like you said you would....

But wait, theres more.

Deer harvest has dropped over 40% since 2007.... Can anyone explain how you can shoot 40+% less deer and the population stays stable?

The fact is that if we are shooting 40+% less deer annually, our population should be going through the roof right now.

So what does it mean?

A) The DNR has no clue how many deer we have

Cougars are eating up that other 40% of deer annually that helps keep the population stabililzed

[BLACKJACK]

Good post Bureaucrat!!!

The cost really isn't zero, it means that the state auditors will need to find the time to audit the DNR and not audit something else.

My one big concern is that it would be done by non-biologists. Would they be qualified to analyze management processes related to deer and deer biology? Where are the new ideas and management practices going to come from? From my reading in Deer and Deer hunting magazine and elsewhere, I seem to remember that Wisconsin and Pennsylvania brought in biologists with deer management backgrounds to upgrade their deer programs.

[smsmith]

My strong preference would be to bring in outside experts in deer management. Whether OLA would bring some of those folks in or not...I have no idea.

[Farmsfulltime]

When this is all said and done current DNR staff will have the needed skills and training to run deer management . Even with an audit process the biologists on staff will be more than qualified , maybe a few minor adjustment to grease the squeaky wheels everyone has their day and on too the future management maybe even raise goals a little , but never double what they are now , will not happen . It still all comes down to habitat on the land . Im in area 225 here have never seen only 7 deer per square mile, see that many in one evening sit on a forty acre field no wonder know one else sees any deer they are all here . Not kidding either but also know that a few miles away they can be thinner, Its all about the food and cover

[DaveT]

Thank you sir.

I will start off by saying that I do agree that the DNR should be using the best possible methods for collecting and using data on the deer populations. However, I am not convinced this is the best method to use to get quick results. Basically they just give a short, broad overview and present them, it is then up to the legislature to take that short evaluation and do something with it.

As a bureaucrat you probably know that to get anything done, the earliest you could hope for is the 2015 audit to get results if you are lucky enough to get selected and then you need to get that to the legislators, to the DNR committee etc. Probably looking at the 2017 season at the earliest.

Hunters are looking for quicker results than that and I think it is important to explain the process, the results of similar audits, and what expectations can be. This is the reason I bring it up as I believe grass roots efforts with the DNR would be quicker and give better results.

I am not sure that links are appropriate to use on this forum but this is a link to a recent full report.

Audit

Quicker results have already been achieved, doe tags have been slashed.

The purpose of the audit is to make sure it doesn't happen again. They need a better model and/or need to use their available resources more efficiently. I frequently get questionnaires from Kansas and other states I've hunted asking a dozen or so questions about where and how long I hunted, what I saw, what I shot, etc. Was I satisfied with what I saw, shot, etc. I've never gotten something like that in MN. Simple, relatively inexpensive, but potentially a boatload of data available simply by asking the customer a few questions.