Audit Push: Time To Act!

[PurpleFloyd]

PF, correct me if I'm wrong or misreading the regs, but I don't believe it says you must take a buck before purchasing a doe tag. It simply says you have you BUY a buck tag before buying a doe tag.

Correction noted and apology offered

[Jameson]

PF, do you purposefully post wrong stuff in hopes that people will reply to you?

[btheturkey]

It seems that they can do everything you are telling the DNR they shouldn't let us do AND they have a great herd.

We are not in Kansas anymore Floyd.

[btheturkey]

Although I'm really not in favor of spending the money on an audit,

Wisconsin spent $150,000 on its last audit. Our DNR is scheduling $270,000 per year for aerial counts we routinely throw in the trash when they don't fit the model.

An audit seems a potential fiscally responsible move when you look at those numbers.

[laker1]

They don't do aerial counts in the northern half of the state-forested area.

Also they are highly effected by snow cover or lack of.

Also they might have thrown out some aerial counts,I don't believe they threw them all out?

[btheturkey]

They don't do aerial counts in the northern half of the state-forested area.

Only the transition zone as far as I know. Too many pines to count deer they say. But they try it on moose. And yes - they throw those counts in the trash as well.

And no they don't throw them all out. But you are not supposed to throw out science based double checks of a model. The double checks verify the model accuracy - not the other way around.

The discrepancies between our model estimates and herd monitoring techniques (aerial counts for one) verify the issues we have do exist.

[PurpleFloyd]

PF, do you purposefully post wrong stuff in hopes that people will reply to you?

No, not at all. I read that one word incorrectly and admitted that error when pointed out.

But that doesn't change the rest of the post in that residents and non residents there can still buy at least 5 tags a year and that is a core argument from the MDDI for the deer population allegedly crashed in the transition zone. And Kansas was offered in every post by one poster who uses them as an example of a state DNR that is better than ours.

[PurpleFloyd]

We are not in Kansas anymore Floyd.

Well yeah, but I was waiting for the MDDI response to why they have great hunting while allowing up to 5 or more deer be harvested,even by non residents and still be a trophy state when tighter regulations here are blamed for wiping out the herd.

[btheturkey]

Well yeah, but I was waiting for the MDDI response to why they have great hunting while allowing up to 5 or more deer be harvested,even by non residents and still be a trophy state when tighter regulations here are blamed for wiping out the herd.

I know nothing of Kansas deer mgmt.

What I do know is a 9% scheduled reduction in MN has gone closer to 50%. And I would like an audit to tell me why.

Just did a quick search and saw this FLOYD.

... about 98,000 deer were killed in Kansas last year by all deer hunters, resident (82,500) and non-resident (15,300).

So when MN drops from 500,000 hunters to 100,000 hunters we can likely all have 5 tags and enjoy Kansas style hunting. Until then MN may want to manage differently than Kansas.

[SmellEsox]

Well yeah, but I was waiting for the MDDI response to why they have great hunting while allowing up to 5 or more deer be harvested,even by non residents and still be a trophy state when tighter regulations here are blamed for wiping out the herd.

Because their deer densities are far higher than ours are or ever was. And I would argue that their system would work great in MN. Our public land wouldn't get pounded the dump out of every year and it would actually be decent hunting as most antlerless tags would only be valid on private lands.

Sell all the public land. Yeah, that sounds great. Look at all the private land in the state and compare it to the public lands. For the most part private lands are abused and managed poorly whereas public land is at least left wild. Look at private lakeshore vs. public. Look at woodlots turned into cropfields. Look at creeks straightened. Look at wetlands drained. Wild areas platted for development. Yeah, there are a few landowners creating habitat. But the vast majority destroy any wildlife value of their land for profit or aesthetics. Privatizing all the land would be a disaster for wildlife and conservation.

[laker1]

Look at Minnesota, almost half of the state is north of all of Wisconsin. Our winters our as hard or harsher than anywhere in the lower 48. So it is hard to compare states.

Also I believe we have the healthiest deer herd with less disease than any state.

But yes they have to change the modeling technique and have more than 1 method to determine populations estimates.

Also everybody wants more hunters,are public lands and private are saturated,more hunters,well than success rates have to drop so we can distribute the deer harvest.

Harvest numbers can not keep up with hunter numbers increase. It is a basic fact.

[btheturkey]

Harvest numbers can not keep up with hunter numbers increase. It is a basic fact.

Incorrect. If you manage the herd for max sustained yield we could likely harvest 2x to 3x as many deer as we did last year.

I am not saying suggesting we manage at those levels but it is biologically possible.

[delcecchi]

It looks t me like what they are doing runs against everything the QDMA/MDDI supporters have been promoting in Minnesota over the past several years.

Food for thought :

What was quoted doesn't say you have to tag a buck. You just have to buy a buck tag, and then you can buy doe tags. Presumably they want you to take a buck, but it doesn't sound like you have to.

[DaveT]

Well yeah, but I was waiting for the MDDI response to why they have great hunting while allowing up to 5 or more deer be harvested,even by non residents and still be a trophy state when tighter regulations here are blamed for wiping out the herd.

Purple, we're in zone 10 so it's 2 doe limit for us but we usually only shoot 2 or 3 off of our 300 acres, even though the law would allow us to kill as many as 12. We like having deer on our property so we don't do that, and neither do our neighbors. I have no idea what the densities are in the rest of the state, when you get out to the west side of the state I imagine they are managing more for mulies and antelope than whitetails. As Turkey pointed out, they have less hunters, therefore they need the existing hunters to take a few more deer to keep their populations from exploding. It's really just math and you're just being kind of douchey, to be honest. When you have dpsm's over 30, 40, 50, and you want to reduce that, you sell more doe tags. In MN we have dpsm's at 15 or less and we are still selling 5 doe tags. If you'd like I can post proof that Kansas deer hunting is a lot better than MN.

[btheturkey]

... and you're just being kind of douchey, to be honest.

Whats the one guy over here like to say?

Oh yeah - Nailed It!

[btheturkey]

Forgive me if things don't seem to add up.

We forgive you Floyd. Your math may not be sharp, but we forgive you.

[laker1]

Incorrect. If you manage the herd for max sustained yield we could likely harvest 2x to 3x as many deer as we did last year.

I am not saying suggesting we manage at those levels but it is biologically possible.

[DaveT]

Your saying 480,000 deer a year? We over harvested at 200,000. You couldn't do it year after year.

It depends on some variables, but yes. If the average dpsm is 15 and we harvested 200K, it would stand to reason we could harvest 400K if our dpsm was 30. That's over simplifying things, but you get the gist.

[delcecchi]

And if the average DSM were 60, we could harvest 800,000.

Of course that might require some supplementary feeding......

[ANYFISH2]

Ok, are we really talking about sustaining a higher deer population or wanting hunters to harvest more?

We can not sustain 250,000 + deer harvested annually while maintaining a socially exceptable population in minnesota. You guys are talking about allowing harvests that got us where we are today. Makes no sense.

If you guys want something other than sustaining a healthy exceptable population, then you lost me.

[btheturkey]

We can not sustain 250,000 + deer harvested annually while maintaining a socially exceptable population in minnesota. You guys are talking about allowing harvests that got us where we are today. Makes no sense.

Cornicelli himself said a sustained harvest of 210,000 - 220,000 may be the sweet spot. 250,000 would be doable.

[SmellEsox]

Ok, are we really talking about sustaining a higher deer population or wanting hunters to harvest more?

We can not sustain 250,000 + deer harvested annually while maintaining a socially exceptable population in minnesota. You guys are talking about allowing harvests that got us where we are today. Makes no sense.

If you guys want something other than sustaining a healthy exceptable population, then you lost me.

We all hear how we could never sustain that type of harvest here. Why is that? Why is it socially acceptable in some states but not here? I'd still love to see the social outcry that called for the axing of the herd back then. I honestly believe it wasn't socially unacceptable, it was DNR Wildlife unacceptable. If I were in charge, that's where I'd set my harvest goals. 250,000.

[btheturkey]

I'd still love to see the social outcry that called for the axing of the herd back then. I honestly believe it wasn't socially unacceptable, it was DNR Wildlife unacceptable. If I were in charge, that's where I'd set my harvest goals. 250,000.

There was no social outcry. Even the 9% herd reduction that came fro the 2005 - 07 stakeholder meetings was a sham. Some of those meetings were actually shut down when the teams refused to accept the talk info the DNR put on the table. DNR cancelled the meetings and set their own numbers.

SE MN last winter saw a super majority vote for a goal of 18 dpsm thrown out and changed to 16 because 'the habitat could not support that number' (Leslie Mc). The statement is a flat out lie. What Leslie meant is 'that would be above the 25 dpsm of deer habitat that we are using as the benchmark in modern deer management. 25 dpsm of habitat keeps us below a mythical line where deer human 'conflicts' escalate (crops, cars)'

I ran the numbers for SE MN using the 25 dpsm of habitat number and came within 2% of the goals selected last winter. Coincidence? I am betting not.

And as the process rolls further north, that 25 dpsm will likely change to 22, or 20 dpsm of habitat.

You take some of those hotbeds of deer densities around Ottertail county where they had 42 deer per square mile in 2007 and the teams voted to keep them stable. The model says those same zones are at 19 dpsm now. How the hell is dropping from 42 dpsm to 19 dpsm stabilizing the herd? The harvest is down around 40% in some of these zones. Stabilized? Hardly.

I am hoping the hunters get off their hands so I am wrong, but if I was a betting man I would say the odds are very high that my doom and gloom is spot on.

[mntatonka]

We all hear how we could never sustain that type of harvest here. Why is that? Why is it socially acceptable in some states but not here? I'd still love to see the social outcry that called for the axing of the herd back then. I honestly believe it wasn't socially unacceptable, it was DNR Wildlife unacceptable. If I were in charge, that's where I'd set my harvest goals. 250,000.

There's a point when the population becomes a problem for the rest of the people. Sure, it's nice to have that many deer to make it easier to hunt them, but with that many extra deer there's a lot more car/deer accidents (which can cause injury or death), there's a lot more damage to crops and gardens, and there's always more potential for disease. That's the social aspect of managing a deer population.

[btheturkey]

There's a point when the population becomes a problem for the rest of the people. Sure, it's nice to have that many deer to make it easier to hunt them, but with that many extra deer there's a lot more car/deer accidents (which can cause injury or death), there's a lot more damage to crops and gardens, and there's always more potential for disease. That's the social aspect of managing a deer population.

So if there is a 'point where the deer population becomes a problem' and we manage socially, why doesn't the DNR track deer vehicle collisions or grower complaints?

Our DNR uses State Farm estimated crash stats over MN Dept public safety numbers. State Farm estimates say deer vehicle collisions are up 41% in the past 10 years. Dept Public Safety says they are down 51%. Which set matches the 41% harvest decline? Not the set the DNR wants to use.

The social aspect of managing the herd appears to keep cutting the numbers until the hunter numbers decline (revenue), or the hunters make enough ruckus that we can not reduce the herd further.

Evidence a 9% announced reduction that has gone past 50%.

[mntatonka]

So if there is a 'point where the deer population becomes a problem' and we manage socially, why doesn't the DNR track deer vehicle collisions or grower complaints?

Our DNR uses State Farm estimated crash stats over MN Dept public safety numbers. State Farm estimates say deer vehicle collisions are up 41% in the past 10 years. Dept Public Safety says they are down 51%. Which set matches the 41% harvest decline? Not the set the DNR wants to use.

The social aspect of managing the herd appears to keep cutting the numbers until the hunter numbers decline (revenue), or the hunters make enough ruckus that we can not reduce the herd further.

Evidence a 9% announced reduction that has gone past 50%.

I agree the population dropped way too far, and that our DNR is way too reactionary instead of looking ahead. A harvest of around 200,000 definitely seems to be a sweet spot between social and biological. Granted, it's got to average out properly across the state, which isn't happening now.

[btheturkey]

The fact set our DNR uses in this 'social' process is disurbing. It is a legitimate way to manage, but the way the numbers will be spun in the stakeholder meetings is appalling.

In SE MN the DNR said 'area farmers estimated 3 million dollars crop damage'. MN does not document or track grower complaints, so we give the public 'farmers guesses' to use as data.

WI legitimately tracks and their statewide crop depredation number is $1.25 million. And they have twice the deer MN has.

Deer vehicle collisions are down 50%, while total collisions have remained steady. The crash numbers are collected in the same manner during the period quoted. Its never good when a vehicle and deer collide, but where do you draw the line? Deer vehicle collisions represent less than 3% of all collisions recorded in MN.

If you want to make deer management a social process, you have to track the social 'issues' deer create. MN does not even attempt to legitimize the process. You can't just make stuff up and blow smoke at the hunters of MN. (or maybe you can. its worked the last 10 years)

[ANYFISH2]

Guys my point is we keep refering to overall harvest as a goal. We achieved 250+ thousand wish the issuance of doe tags in the mid 2000's. When I personally heard and seen that the deer where too numerous. I had sits for an entire season seeing 20+ deer being the norm and never seeing less than ten, all on 80 acres.

Now in the same breath some are saying we issued too many doe tags back then, but some how think we are going to get too 250 thousand harvested deer without such issuance of doe tags? I don't get it or follow how it will happen without issueing tons of doe tags.

The transition zone can and should support a higher deer population, the reason I have been supporting all of this, however, it is only 1/3 of the state. The NE can not sustain 25-30dpsm because of predation and winter mortality. The SW also can not due to lack of habitat imparticular security cover. So the "states" harvest would need to be supported by the transition area. That sucks, I want more deer, not record harvests.

[Farmsfulltime]

Looks like the audit push stands at less than 500 has not moved much in a few days I even signed to try to put an end to all the complaining , would probably hear more complaints in any bar on opening night in Minnesota than the audit will get

[hockeybc69]

As if the petition is the only method being used to gain support..... Have you seen the Outdoor News ads?

Gaurantee you there are plenty of people that are not on this forum or any others that are behind it. Plenty....