Audit Push: Time To Act!

[PurpleFloyd]

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

[btheturkey]

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.

The herd is down more than 50%. If the DNR can say it is down 9% based upon a model, I can more certainly use state gathered data that shows it down 51%. Mine numbers are based upon fact. Their numbers use a flawed model. My numbers match decreases in the harvest, P&Y registrations, and sampled deer processors and taxidermists. Their numbers don't match any of the above.

Below is a graph for miles driven in MN. Miles driven are down 1% from 2006 - 2013. Total recorded collisions same years are down 1%. But deer vehicle collisions are down 51%.

What is asinine is to ignore the information that is right there in front of you in black and white. To date the only folks who have down that work for the DNR and some on this forum.

Leslie originally claimed the numbers were not collected the same as they were 10 years ago. So we asked the Dept of Public Safety. Her statement is false. The numbers are collected in the same manner. The data is solid.

I asked Merchant why we don't use the data.

So, here is what the Michigan DNR says about deer vehicle collisions: “Deer-vehicle collisions (DVC) are commonly used as an index to the deer population trend, the idea being that high rates of DVCs are correlated with high deer populations, and vice versa. Research has shown that there are other factors that influence the rate of DVCs. Habitat proximate to the roadway and highway characteristics can blur the relationship between deer population and DVCs. However, DVC data can provide useful information if contextualized as one part of a deer population assessment.

These data are provided by the Michigan State Police. Although changes may have occurred in law enforcement response and recording of DVCs over time, we assume they have remained consistent enough to provide an accurate estimate of DVC rates relative to vehicle miles driven.”

Michigan clearly values the data so long as the above mentioned factors do not influence the data. Merchant makes no mention of those factors influencing the MN data. Merchant in essence confirms the value of the data.

Below is from WI

Interest in alternative and supplemental tools for monitoring deer populations led us to assess the potential for deer-vehicle collision data to serve as a deer population index. In Wisconsin, there are several datasets related to deer-vehicle collisions, including reported vehicle crashes with deer (reports from law enforcement, data managed by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation) and deer carcasses removed from roadways (data managed by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources). These datasets were not designed to track deer populations, so the first step in this process is to simply understand the data: who collects the data, how is it collected, what influences data collection? An important feature of a population index is that it is collected the same way every year and every place. If data collection is not consistent, then we cannot be sure if changes in the numbers of deer-vehicle collisions are real or caused by changes in data collection procedures. For example, we found that sheriff departments vary tremendously in their policies for responding to deer-vehicle collisions and that some departments have changed their policies over time. This is an example of inconsistency in data collection that greatly complicates interpretation of deer-vehicle collision data. We also found inconsistency in the deer-carcass removal data. Most contractors are paid a flat fee on a monthly basis, however some contractors were occasionally paid per-deer instead. Large increases and decreases in the number of carcasses picked up by contractors coincided with changes in how contractors were paid (Figure 4). [color:#FF0000]Possibly due to inconsistent data collection, correlations between deer-vehicle collision data and deer population estimates and buck harvest are weak or non-existent. In addition, the number of carcasses collected (adjusted for traffic volume) was poorly correlated to the proportion of reported accidents caused by collision with deer in most counties. It may seem intuitive that year-to-year changes in deer-vehicle collisions will reflect changes in deer abundance, however inconsistencies in data collection reduce the value of this data for purposes of monitoring deer populations.”

MN has collected the data in the same manner for the period in question so everything in red is moot.

We do not collect/track deer carcasses so all in blue is moot.

The black font is what applies here in MN and WI seems to agree value exists there.

[PurpleFloyd]

A little background on Beau Liddell and the Little Falls Area office.

Case Study: Little Falls Area Wildlife

Quote:

Little Falls Area Wildlife Manager Beau Liddell has helped provide special hunting opportunities for thousands of people, including disabled veterans and youth. But budgets squeezed between increasing costs and declining revenues could put the future of some of those opportunities in jeopardy.

Already, Liddell's station has had to cut back on important wildlife management activities. He's had to eliminate nearly all habitat work on private lands and assistance to landowners.

Scent post surveys and other population assessment efforts have suffered. Outreach to area schools and sportsmen's clubs has been reduced 90 percent.

With inadequate resources to undertake new shallow lake and wetland surveys, opportunities for improving waterfowl habitat are being missed. Maintenance of access roads, trails and parking lots at WMAs has been pared to the bare minimum.

The capacity to work with local government to minimize wildlife impacts resulting from new developments has nearly disappeared.

"We've been able to maintain quality habitat and offer an excellent range and variety of hunting opportunities up to now," Liddell says. "But we've cut any and all fat from our plates and soon we'll have to start trimming muscle without a solution to the funding problem."

Quote:

The bottom line?

The quality and range of public hunting opportunities available in the Little Falls area will suffer without an increase in license fees.

Quote:

What We Do:

The Minnesota DNR's Little Falls wildlife area includes 1.6 million acres of public and private lands and waters in Benton, Morrison and Todd counties, providing excellent hunting and trapping opportunities for a wide array of species, including deer, turkey, pheasant, grouse, waterfowl, woodcock, doves and furbearers.

Manage habitat and facilities on 56 WMAs, cover- ing 20,000 acres, in Benton, Morrison & Todd Counties, and administer three Waterfowl Refuges, one State Duck Refuge, and one State Game Ref - uge.

Each year plan controlled grassland & woodland burns on over 2,000 acres, successfully complete burns on 500-1,000 acres on 10-15 WMAs, re- store or enhance an additional 800-1,200 acres of grassland at 20-30 sites on area-wide WMAs, and monitor and control noxious weeds on over 300 WMA acres.

Annually plan and administer over 200 acres of timber stand improvements on WMAs, and moni- tor and maintain 50 wetlands and shallow lakes covering 9,264 acres in Benton, Morrison and Todd Counties

In collaboration with conservation partners, pro- vided technical guidance and management on 6 wild rice lakes, covering 1,689 acres in Todd County.

Annually assess over 20 potential WMA land ac- quisitions.

Annually develop, maintain or improve over 200 user facilities (parking lots, gates, trails, etc.), maintain several miles of access road, conduct over 10 site cleanups, survey & main- tain up to 30 miles of boundary on area- wide WMAs, and maintain 130 miles of boundary on Camp Ripley Game Refuge.

Annually responded to over 40 major nuisance wildlife cases, including problem bears, and deer, turkey & crane crop depredations.

Coordinate and administer dove & goose banding activities, and deer, waterfowl, pheasant, grouse and predator surveys throughout work area.

Plan and administer Camp Ripley Archery Hunt, the largest event of its kind in the world, involving over 1,600 joint agency man hours annually.

Plan, administer or provide technical assistance for 10 additional annual special deer & turkey hunts, providing hunting recreation for about 100 dis- abled veterans, 200 deployed soldiers, and 150 youth.

[btheturkey]

Beau Liddel turned down a request from the Rice Sportsmens club to put a food plot for deer and other animals on a piece of state land.

That same piece was donated to the state by the Rice Club.

Don't start singing the blues for the guy who was going to put 221 and other area zones into intensive harvest with early antler less and potential earn a buck for 2014.

You will get zero sympathy from hunters in the zones he manages.

[PurpleFloyd]

Why did they donate it to the state? Wouldn't it stand to reason if they kept it in their own hands they could put the food plot in without asking permission?

[mntatonka]

Why did they donate it to the state? Wouldn't it stand to reason if they kept it in their own hands they could put the food plot in without asking permission?

Because most clubs like that aren't allowed to actually own land. Not to mention the insurance costs with owning land and allowing hunting. Nearly every organization that goes in on land gives it back to the state for public use.

[btheturkey]

Why did they donate it to the state? Wouldn't it stand to reason if they kept it in their own hands they could put the food plot in without asking permission?

No clue. Just figured if you gave the state a 40 they may let you plant an acre or 2 for the critters. Mille Lacs refuge mgr green lighted similar deal and nwtf is looking to raise cash to get it done. Rice had the cash lined up and just needed a green light.

They got the stop sign.

[smsmith]

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

Gotta love seeing farmers as being stewards of the resource

Drive deer numbers to ridiculously low levels and watch hunters leave the sport. Then farmers will have to doze the whole dam state because nobody will want to hunt. When they can't doze enough because the state owns next to them you'll have to pay the state sharpshooters to deal with the deer.

[Farmsfulltime]

Ok

[Farmsfulltime]

In all honesty is easier to work with us than against us . Don't forget who owns the land permission isn't going to get easier lots of state hunters rely on farm hunting for private hunting conditions . if the cover is removed the farmers wont need any hunters as the deer wont be there to hunt . Look at southern Minnesota in places the deer sleep under the one piece of brush along a ditch .

[PurpleFloyd]

Because most clubs like that aren't allowed to actually own land. Not to mention the insurance costs with owning land and allowing hunting. Nearly every organization that goes in on land gives it back to the state for public use.

I get that but I thought the State had walk in access programs that allowed the public to hunt without the liability

[smsmith]

In all honesty is easier to work with us than against us . Don't forget who owns the land permission isn't going to get easier lots of state hunters rely on farm hunting for private hunting conditions . if the cover is removed the farmers wont need any hunters as the deer wont be there to hunt . Look at southern Minnesota in places the deer sleep under the one piece of brush along a ditch .

Exactly. I own my land and because farmers have pressured the DNR into lowering the herd that land has less value for recreation. The taxes I pay on my land are considerably higher than what farmers pay, and that land generates no ROI. That land also gets zero subsidies/cost sharing from the gooberment.

Farmers aren't the only folks who own land

[smsmith]

Heck, even hail doesn't do that much damage.

I've talked with a few farmers near Swanville who would strongly disagree with that statement

[smsmith]

In all honesty is easier to work with us than against us .

If by "work with us" you mean sit down, have reasonable discussions using facts and come up with a compromise that fits all the parties' needs...that sounds great. If by "work with us" you mean take whatever the DNR decides is going to happen after being influenced by Farm Bureau reps...that doesn't sound so great.

[creepworm]

I've talked with a few farmers near Swanville who would strongly disagree with that statement

Thing is, hail damage is somewhat rare, and there is insurance that can be purchased to offset the damage done. Deer damage is a reoccurring event, year after year if a field is near good habitat. Also, there is no financial mitigation when it comes to deer damage, the farmer is just [PoorWordUsage] out of luck.

Just a comment on what mntatonka has posted. The pictures he posted earlier in this thread shows a corn field where a significant areas will have 0 zero yield. It takes one heck of a hail storm to turn corn into 0 yield.

[smsmith]

It takes one heck of a hail storm to turn corn into 0 yield.

...and that's what some guys got in that area.

[creepworm]

...and that's what some guys got in that area.

I am not doubting that. What I am doubting is that the same thing happened last year to those fields, and will happen next year to those same fields. Hail is not a recurring event the way deer damage is.

[smsmith]

I am not doubting that. What I am doubting is that the same thing happened last year to those fields, and will happen next year to those same fields. Hail is not a recurring event the way deer damage is.

I won't argue that point...at least not in areas like mntatonka showed earlier. I've spoken with a number of farmers in this area...none have expressed concerns about deer damage. I'm not saying it doesn't happen...just that I don't think it is a huge issue in most of the state.

It certainly is NOT a big enough issue to start talking carp about destroying habitat so all the deer disappear. Talked with a farmer a bit ago about such a comment. His response was with corn at $2 there sure won't be a rush to put more ground into corn, he sees a resurgence of CRP at that price level.

[creepworm]

I won't argue that point...at least not in areas like mntatonka showed earlier. I've spoken with a number of farmers in this area...none have expressed concerns about deer damage. I'm not saying it doesn't happen...just that I don't think it is a huge issue in most of the state.

It certainly is NOT a big enough issue to start talking carp about destroying habitat so all the deer disappear. Talked with a farmer a bit ago about such a comment. His response was with corn at $2 there sure won't be a rush to put more ground into corn, he sees a resurgence of CRP at that price level.

I agree with this entire statement. But sadly, there will be no resurgence of crp acres. Crp acres are maxed out per the funding level in the new farm bill.

[smsmith]

Can you explain that a little further creepworm? You're saying that no existing acres that are growing corn can be put into CRP?

[SmellEsox]

Hate to break this news to you folks, but Beau will do nothing to help you benefit deer. NOTHING! They are nothing but vermin to Beau. Many people have tried and the answer is always NO. "You don't want more deer on your property".

[smsmith]

Hate to break this news to you folks, but Beau will do nothing to help you benefit deer. NOTHING! They are nothing but vermin to Beau. Many people have tried and the answer is always NO. "You don't want more deer on your property".

I've spoken with quite a few folks in the area, many of them associated with MDHA and/or Rice Sportsmens Club and that is exactly what they ALL say.

One thing an audit should point out is the discrepancy between area managers. It will also find that Beau has been managing for numbers below what the public stakeholder teams established the last time around. If that isn't a betrayal of the public trust...then I don't know what is.

Having some guy with a personal agenda running the show while we continue to pay his salary....total B$. I'm just hopeful that his arrogance will be his undoing. He is a government employee...he cannot be allowed to treat those of us who pay his salary the way he does.

[btheturkey]

Hate to break this news to you folks, but Beau will do nothing to help you benefit deer. NOTHING! They are nothing but vermin to Beau. Many people have tried and the answer is always NO. "You don't want more deer on your property".

Amen brother. We sat in a meeting in St Paul and Leslie said Beau was not managing for numbers lower than the stakeholder teams suggested. We asked her if she was lying, or flat out had no clue what the area manger was doing and produced a sheet of paper Beau had printed off showing plain as day he was managing for goals lower than St Paul and our deer czar were reporting.

Area managers have a huge say in what the zone harvest designation is, and Beau would have left all his zones 5 antler less per guy forever if it was his call.

[LandDr]

Stop expecting the govt or non-profits to do what you want them to do. They are grazing public land (really looks nice doesn't it?), not developing thermal cover, not developing food sources...only developing buffalo and prairie chicken habitat. If I only had public land to hunt...I would be f'n p*ssed off!!

Stop supporting these groups. You buy seed, trees and services from them but in return they are not taking your goals and objectives into consideration. Either start doing it yourself or working with a private company that REALLY has your goals and objectives in mind and that are service and results orientated.

[smsmith]

Stop expecting the govt or non-profits to do what you want them to do. They are grazing public land (really looks nice doesn't it?), not developing thermal cover, not developing food sources...only developing buffalo and prairie chicken habitat. If I only had public land to hunt...I would be f'n p*ssed off!!

Stop supporting these groups. You buy seed, trees and services from them but in return they are not taking your goals and objectives into consideration. Either start doing it yourself or working with a private company that REALLY has your goals and objectives in mind and that are service and results orientated.

I don't "support" the gooberment in any way other than buying licenses. Trees are purchased from North Central Reforestation, seeds are purchased from a variety of private companies, have never had any services from them (hired a private forester for my 2C plan).

Allowing CRP to be grazed ticks me off...not even to mention grazing WMAs.

[LandDr]

smsmith...was not just directed towards you, but every landowner and hunter out there. Just don't support them...I think we can do better on our own.

[smsmith]

smsmith...was not just directed towards you, but every landowner and hunter out there. Just don't support them...I think we can do better on our own.

I realize that LandDr....was just trying to emphasize your point. I agree with you completely.

[LandDr]

10-4

[btheturkey]

Stop expecting the govt or non-profits to do what you want them to do.

Without positive long term change that will be the route. And the writing is on the wall. When the DNR started managing for 12 dpsm in areas that once had 30 or 40, many of us took it upon ourselves to shape our lands to regain that kind of hunting. But it comes at the expense of the 2 day per year hunter. Hot spots glow hotter, and cold spots grow colder. And the trend will continue, at the expense of hunter numbers I fear. Retention and recruitment will suffer. That is the road we are on without longterm changes to our deer management.

[laker1]

They are asking for people to be on the advisory board to talk about different zone area management. Get involved,it would do more than discussing it here. I acquired about it,will see.