Audit Push: Time To Act!

[btheturkey]

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.

You are absolutely correct that diff areas of the state have diff capacities. Spot on. The DNR will likely never let us get back anywhere near 250,000 deer per year.

Deer biology says you need to take 20 - 30% of adult does to stabilize the herd. Lets use 20% as we are at the northern extremes of the math.

If we have 1 million deer at the start of season, about 625,000 adult deer. At a 2.5:1 doe to buck ratio, thats 60% does or 375,000 adult does.

Kill 20% of those adult does thats 75,000 does killed

Kill 50% of the 250,000 bucks, 125,000 bucks killed

Add in the yearling harvest

The math is by no means exact, but if you have 1 million deer, you can likely kill 20 - 30% of the adults (1.5 plus) and still keep pumping out the numbers.

Start killing over 20% (not an exact percentage but somewhere close) of the adult does in MN and the herd will decrease. We did that in 2003 - 2008, and that is when the major reduction of the herd occurred. We have not killed 74,000 adult does since 2008.

And 2009 was the first year MDHA started telling the DNR there were problems, but we kept selling too many doe tags. Because the model and lack of herd monitoring failed us. Or there was an agenda.

With a herd of 1 million deer, a harvest of 200 - 250,000 should be attainable.

[btheturkey]

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

Very surprised the signatures area that low. I thought they would come quickly.

We have thousands of paper signatures that will be delivered to the OAL.

Support for the audit will be proposed at the MDHA state meeting next winter.

Elected are officially on board supporting the changes.

Key elected on committees are in the loop and in support.

Thousands of dollars have been donated to educating the public and the elected.

Pressure is being applied from all different directions to make the changes.

The sum of the pieces will bring whatever change occurs. The online petition is only a dimple on the face of the initiative.

[creepworm]

You can't just make stuff up and blow smoke at the hunters of MN.

Really? I have asked this before and you refuse to answer but I will ask again. Where does this "beyond 50% reduction in the deer herd" number come from.

Plenty of smoke being blown at the hunters of mn, and a majority of it has come from mddi.

[btheturkey]

Really? I have asked this before and you refuse to answer but I will ask again. Where does this "beyond 50% reduction in the deer herd" number come from.

Plenty of smoke being blown at the hunters of mn, and a majority of it has come from mddi.

No smoke - only state collected data. Here is a letter I sent to Steve Merchant today.

We don't make this stuff up.

Enjoy-

Steve,

As part of a public awareness campaign, I plan on sharing some MN Department of Public Safety data on deer vehicle collisions. In an effort to make sure the data is presented accurately, I am giving you a chance to explain why the MN DNR does not accept the trends and data represented in the reports as accurate, or of value.

In 2006 the Department of Public Safety recorded 78,745 crashes, and 4,138 were deer related.

In 2013 the Department of Public Safety recorded 77,707 crashes, and 2,096 were deer related.

So from 2006 to 2013 the total recorded crash rate is down 1%, but deer vehicle collisions are down 51%.

Deer vehicle collisions are a primary herd monitoring tool in at least one state, and my interpretation is the herd is down close to 50% on the heels of a 9% scheduled reduction.

I am aware that not all crashes are reported for either set, but have email confirmation that the data has been collected in the same manner for the years referenced.

My print deadline is Tuesday, and if you can provide legitimate reasons the data should not be presented I can revise the content. If you can not provide legitimate reasons the data should not be used, I will be sharing it in print, and continuing to use the data as part of a push for an audit of the MN DNR deer model, and herd monitoring techniques.

Thank you for your time,

Brooks Johnson

MNBowhunters Inc

[creepworm]

WHERE DOES THE 50% COME FROM? I do not see how you can state that number as a fact, and have nothing to back that up. And no, a 41% decline in REPORTED car deer collisions does nothing to convince me the deer population is down over 50%. I sure hope for your sake you have better proof than that, otherwise anyone with anyone with any skepticism, will be turned away from the mddi initiative.

[delcecchi]

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.

That was the point of my comment. The harvest is limited by the carrying capacity of the habitat and the deer population that is acceptable to the people of the area. Hunters and Farmers and Insurance companies all have different opinions about the proper population level.

[DaveT]

Hunters and Farmers and Insurance companies all have different opinions about the proper population level.

True, hunters want enough deer around so that they see a few and have the opportunity to shoot one. Farmers and insurance companies want zero deer.

http://www.fieldandstream.com/articles/hunting/2013/10/dirty-politics-deer-management

[Farmsfulltime]

This is what explains the removal of fence rows, clearing groves and draining remove the cover and you remove the deer consuming your crops and produce more product pretty simple really . The DNR is responsible for deer damage on crop fields as they have control of the population thru harvest limits. You want to see cover disappear in farm country raise the deer population to unacceptable levels the farmers will doze all the cover to get rid of the deer its already happening don't speed it up

[Farmsfulltime]

Get asked all the time to hunt , everyone wants the milk no one wants to buy the cow . Their happy to let you buy it grow crops pay taxes but we want to play here for free

[DaveT]

This is what explains the removal of fence rows, clearing groves and draining remove the cover and you remove the deer consuming your crops and produce more product pretty simple really . The DNR is responsible for deer damage on crop fields as they have control of the population thru harvest limits. You want to see cover disappear in farm country raise the deer population to unacceptable levels the farmers will doze all the cover to get rid of the deer its already happening don't speed it up

Are you threatening us? Most of you are clearing cover non stop, like a few more deer is going to speed that process up?

I wasn't aware that the entire country was void of all wildlife when you started farming. It must have been a huge shock to you to see that first deer or raccoon. Did you run for the hills thinking Martians were attacking Earth?

If you don't like losing some crops to wildlife, build yourself a greenhouse or shut up, it's part of the business you chose and your buddies all deal with the same losses, therefore it's reflected equally in the market. Remove all the deer and everybody's yields go up, not just yours. What happens when yields go up? Prices go down. A half inch of rain at the right time will have more impact on your yields and profits than deer ever could.

[SmellEsox]

Get asked all the time to hunt , everyone wants the milk no one wants to buy the cow . Their happy to let you buy it grow crops pay taxes but we want to play here for free

what do you mean by this? Wouldn't hunters help you save money by shooting deer that eat your crops?

[mntatonka]

A half inch of rain at the right time will have more impact on your yields and profits than deer ever could.

Really? Go back and look at the picture I posted of one of our corn fields. I can promise you that a half inch of rain at the right/wrong time wouldn't do anywhere near that much damage. Heck, even hail doesn't do that much damage.

[Farmsfulltime]

It is a factor remove the cover removes the deer think about it alittle, As far as higher crop production lowering prices lower prices just makes the deer feeding a higher percentage of the profit in fact its possible on some acres to be the only profit on low margin years and it was removed by deer or raccoons as some say

[Farmsfulltime]

The reason DNR sits down with farm stakeholders is because of case law do some research. Read carefully,,.,, The DNR is responsible for deer populations because they control harvest levels there as such they are required to take into account deer damage and control populations and work on solving those problems

[delcecchi]

If we have 1 million deer at the start of season, about 625,000 adult deer. At a 2.5:1 doe to buck ratio, thats 60% does or 375,000 adult does.

Kill 20% of those adult does thats 75,000 does killed

Kill 50% of the 250,000 bucks, 125,000 bucks killed

Add in the yearling harvest

The math is by no means exact, but if you have 1 million deer, you can likely kill 20 - 30% of the adults (1.5 plus) and still keep pumping out the numbers.

Start killing over 20% (not an exact percentage but somewhere close) of the adult does in MN and the herd will decrease. We did that in 2003 - 2008, and that is when the major reduction of the herd occurred. We have not killed 74,000 adult does since 2008.

And 2009 was the first year MDHA started telling the DNR there were problems, but we kept selling too many doe tags. Because the model and lack of herd monitoring failed us. Or there was an agenda.

With a herd of 1 million deer, a harvest of 200 - 250,000 should be attainable.

And if my aunt.....

Where does the 2.5 to one doe to buck ratio come from? Just wondering. Is it due to harvest?

[Jameson]

...Where does the 2.5 to one doe to buck ratio come from? Just wondering. Is it due to harvest?

Not to answer for the turkey, but yes and also more natural mortality. Without hunting the bucks would have less of an average life span (fighting to the death, wondering around during the rut getting hit by cars, going into winter rutted out....) than do the does. Sure the does have their own challenges, but on average they live longer. With a shorter life, and being born close to 50/50 there ends up being more does than bucks. Is it 2.5:1, or 2:1, or 3:1, not so sure.

[laker1]

The DNR works with farmers because they hope by having a reasonable deer harvest farmers and hunters will both realize a happy medium. Most farmers appreciate wildlife also.

Yes there is DNR Wildlife depredation specialist around the state whose main job is to work with farmers and to decrease crop predation,while at the same time maintain a healthy deer herd.

[btheturkey]

WHERE DOES THE 50% COME FROM? I do not see how you can state that number as a fact, and have nothing to back that up. And no, a 41% decline in REPORTED car deer collisions does nothing to convince me the deer population is down over 50%. I sure hope for your sake you have better proof than that, otherwise anyone with anyone with any skepticism, will be turned away from the mddi initiative.

You seem a little slower than most I deal with.

Deer vehicle collisions are down 51%. That is where I get the number from.

41% is the harvest decline.

Then we had a really bad winter that took the herd back further.

We are well past a 50% reduction of the herd.

[btheturkey]

Where does the 2.5 to one doe to buck ratio come from? Just wondering. Is it due to harvest?

2.5 is not exact, but a reasoned estimate based in science.

the-reality-of-doebuck-ratios http://www.qdma.com/articles/the-reality-of-doebuck-ratios

[btheturkey]

The DNR works with farmers because they hope by having a reasonable deer harvest farmers and hunters will both realize a happy medium. Most farmers appreciate wildlife also.

Yes there is DNR Wildlife depredation specialist around the state whose main job is to work with farmers and to decrease crop predation,while at the same time maintain a healthy deer herd.

They now have 2 guys in SE MN working on crop depredation issues. Clint was hoping to keep the SE zones out of intensive harvest, but something must have changed and they went back to 5 antler less this year.

Also saw a letter in the ODN on depredation tags by Alexandria. I personally would rather see a legitimate system addressing complaints at the hot spots to solve local issues vs the wide brush of managed or intensive or even hunters choice designations.

[creepworm]

You seem a little slower than most I deal with.

Deer vehicle collisions are down 51%. That is where I get the number from.

41% is the harvest decline.

Then we had a really bad winter that took the herd back further.

We are well past a 50% reduction of the herd.

I must be really slow because I don't understand why the mddi is pushing for more expensive and time consuming management tools (flyovers, hunter surveys, etc) when the leader of the mddi feels the number of car deer collisions tells the whole story?

You are basing your "more than 50% decline" statement solely on car deer collision numbers, correct?

[delcecchi]

2.5 is not exact, but a reasoned estimate based in science.

the-reality-of-doebuck-ratios http://www.qdma.com/articles/the-reality-of-doebuck-ratios

[PurpleFloyd]

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.

[delcecchi]

Yeah, he was reinforcing my point and he was the first one to get douchey, if that is the word for it.

You have been saying how great Kansas is and I have no doubt it is, but you cannot look at Kansas and believe in any way that the DNR can do anything to make this state like that one is. First off the amount of private land they have (And in general much larger tracts of land per owner which allows them to have more of an impact on management makes it possible to have the hunting they do.

We do have more hunters and we have smaller tracts of land from property line to property line so you are going to have more variations in numbers and the DNR is not going to be able to micro manage the herd in the ways the MDDI wants to.

And on top of it we have winter that puts us on the northern edge of deer territory. Kansas does not have winter problems.

[btheturkey]

And on top of it we have winter that puts us on the northern edge of deer territory. Kansas does not have winter problems.

Take the 2.5 I used and change it to the 1.8 you read was average.

That means less does, and the model scenario get s worse.

If the math is too tough I can do it tomorrow.

[btheturkey]

We do have more hunters and we have smaller tracts of land from property line to property line so you are going to have more variations in numbers and the DNR is not going to be able to micro manage the herd in the ways the MDDI wants to.

Glad to hear you feel budgeting $270,000 for aerial counts we throw in the trash is a solid plan Floyd.

Cant be any better way to monitor the herd no way no how.

You are a Purple gem for sure.

Similar to a Hickey.

[laker1]

What I understand instead of $270,000 worth of aerial counts disregarded, it was certain flights because of certain existing ground conditions when flight held. Not all.

Also Aerial flights with much accuracy are limited more to the farmland.

I would maybe call the flights more of a index or trend,just as their population modeling should be called. Each is a tool and sometimes either may be inaccurate.

[Jameson]

What I understand instead of $270,000 worth of aerial counts disregarded, it was certain flights because of certain existing ground conditions when flight held...

Not sure if it was all of them or not, but know that a couple of them had ideal ground conditions and were thrown out.

[btheturkey]

What I understand instead of $270,000 worth of aerial counts disregarded, it was certain flights because of certain existing ground conditions when flight held.

So when Cornicelli says at the Brainerd listening session that conditions were perfect for the 'gold standard' zone 221 flight but the results are not back yet, and the next week at the Cambridge session he announces the results were thrown in the trash it was because of ground conditions.

Not likely.

9% reduction has the harvest down 41% while selling more tags and you guys don't want to explore a better way of doing things.

Some say insanity is doing the same thing expecting different results. That shoe is a good fit in this discussion.

[creepworm]

9% reduction has the harvest down 41% while selling more tags and you guys don't want to explore a better way of doing thing.

At least you quit saying the herd is down "more than 50%. It was just plain assinine for someone in your position to be using a baseless, made up number in hopes of scaring hunters into joining your fight.