Audit Push: Time To Act!

[smsmith]

Ok ,, I will date myself a little I have deer hunted since 1971 have seen the highs and lows , and the population now is not low compared to the early 70s

You and I are in the same approximate age group...you probably have me by a handful of years.

So...if this year's total harvest comes in at around the level of what it was in say...1965 or 1966...you'll continue to have zero problems with the DNR and their deer management...correct?

[Bureaucrat]

I forgot one big outlying factor that could potentially drive down the harvest further than expected from the reduced doe tags.

Consider we've had two brutal winters in a row now. For two fawning seasons, we've had some pretty beat up does going into spring that may have aborted one or all of their fawns. From the second winter past, those fawns would be this year's basket rack herd destined for the meat pole. I would expect buck harvest to decline as well as doe.

Gonna be interesting in here come Thanksgiving.

[hockeybc69]

According to FarmsAlot..... Just find a farm field and you will find deer.

I guess if I put signs that say "FARM" on my corn, beans, clover and winter rye I have in our ground, then the deer would just show up..... I had no idea that farm fields had such an easy time drawing deer....

Maybe I should rent our land to a farmer and all my deer concerns will disappear.

[Bear55]

I am ready for a low harvest. But what irks me is that our wildlife manager INSISTS that our population of deer is the same today as it was in 2007.

I've always said since the population boom the DNR is learning on the job, still a long way to go but they should have a better idea what is happening now and they also know the general public won't settle for excuses and a steady 1 million deer population year after year. The time to ease back on the doe tags was maybe 2008-2012 but they didn't really take care of business back then. Last two winters should have speeded up their education a bit. The thing I wonder about is even if the held the tags back a lot of us might be in the same boat because of the winters. Hopefully in the future we see them a little more open to changes faster down the road. For a while we probably had too many deer, then they naturally over correct the problem and here we sit. A little honesty could go a long way too, nothing wrong with telling people one year there are 500K deer and during peak years it was 1.5 million or so. They don't have to be correct but something close would help.

[smsmith]

A little honesty could go a long way too, nothing wrong with telling people one year there are 500K deer and during peak years it was 1.5 million or so. They don't have to be correct but something close would help.

Exactly. Leslie was quoted awhile ago that the herd in central MN had not shrunk signficantly and that there was still "about a million deer" in the state. Now, she's being quoted as saying our kill may come in around 120K and that the reason for the low harvest is because the DNR is trying to rebuild the herd.

If the herd is in fine shape and there's about a million deer in the state, why do we need to rebuild the herd?

"About a million" in DNR speak must mean anywhere between 500K and 1.5 million

[btheturkey]

For two fawning seasons, we've had some pretty beat up does going into spring that may have aborted one or all of their fawns. From the second winter past, those fawns would be this year's basket rack herd destined for the meat pole. I would expect buck harvest to decline as well as doe.

[btheturkey]

http://www.deercrash.org/states/minnesota.htm

This link goes to 2008 and shows crashes were cut by nearly 2/3 from 1994-2008 even though the deer population increased substantially during that time. That pretty much puts a nail in the coffin of the theory that you can correlate crashes and population directly .

Your seem to miss the point Floyd. The data you posted illustrates what we are saying. The model does not work. Deer vehicle collisions are accurate. DNR estimates from the model are incorrect. There lies the discrepancy in what you posted.

[B. Amish]

Exactly. Leslie was quoted awhile ago that the herd in central MN had not shrunk signficantly and that there was still "about a million deer" in the state. Now, she's being quoted as saying our kill may come in around 120K and that the reason for the low harvest is because the DNR is trying to rebuild the herd.

If the herd is in fine shape and there's about a million deer in the state, why do we need to rebuild the herd?

"About a million" in DNR speak must mean anywhere between 500K and 1.5 million

Are you upset that she's changed her stance to basically what you want?

[B. Amish]

Your seem to miss the point Floyd. The data you posted illustrates what we are saying. The model does not work. Deer vehicle collisions are accurate. DNR estimates from the model are incorrect. There lies the discrepancy in what you posted.

huh?

[smsmith]

Are you upset that she's changed her stance to basically what you want?

She hasn't changed her stance...she talks out of both sides of her mouth

[deerminator]

I know I'm not as scientific as the DNR, but my trail cams, most hunters and non-hunters around here confirm deer are more abundant than ever before. I see more and more deer every time out. And I hunt at various points throughout the county. Yet we get to hunt one deer. Would the deer population suffer if we could take two? No, but the DNR admits it sets its limits according to social preferences. And the more vocal hunters say they want to see even more deer. So the silent majority (that needs to speak up) here goes along with it. Or buys plenty of party tags and just works around the system.

[creepworm]

My cameras agree. Last 2 years recruitment has been rough by me-

What? I was told the DNR is responsible for the supposed drop in deer numbers, not the weather.

#AudittheDNR

[SmellEsox]

I know I'm not as scientific as the DNR, but my trail cams, most hunters and non-hunters around here confirm deer are more abundant than ever before. I see more and more deer every time out. And I hunt at various points throughout the county. Yet we get to hunt one deer. Would the deer population suffer if we could take two? No, but the DNR admits it sets its limits according to social preferences. And the more vocal hunters say they want to see even more deer. So the silent majority (that needs to speak up) here goes along with it. Or buys plenty of party tags and just works around the system.

I believe the silent majority thinks there are a lot fewer deer than what DNR says are out there.

[deerminator]

It varies obviously from county and permit area to area. In our area and many others I talk to in West Central Minnesota (5-6 county area), the majority of people I talk to say they want to shoot more deer because they're seeing plenty. I would love it if the DNR would do a statewide survey (when you buy your license) and got the majority of hunters to weigh in. But I think a small number of people - but again more vocal than the average joe - are concerned with what the results would reveal.

[Jameson]

Have those areas in West Central Minnesota been Lottery/Hunter Choice areas the last few years? It seems that there is more deer in those areas this year than in areas that are traditionally Managed/Intensive.

[smsmith]

Have those areas in West Central Minnesota been Lottery/Hunter Choice areas the last few years? It seems that there is more deer in those areas this year than in areas that are traditionally Managed/Intensive.

That does frequently seem to be the case.

[Jameson]

nm

[deerminator]

Yes. Lottery for many years now. But some of the areas around us have been Managed. I realize some areas don't have a lot of deer but it seems like the whole state, or most of it at least, just got assigned one deer limit. Last winter was tough here. But it didn't seem to affect the population. Would be nice to just have a few simple questions at license time to poll hunters on their area. I know everyone says that would be extremely tough to do, but even every 5 years would be good to take a barometer.

[ANYFISH2]

I agree with the survey at P.O.S.

I have said before, part of me suspects St.Paul was a little miffed after the listening sessions that it was decided they would beyond with harvest reduction. Maybe causeing some distain for the MDDI and other supporters.

I suspect this because I hunt 246 since 1992, I can not recall antlerless lottery tags less than 1500. This year 500?

This is year will be good for the future.

[smsmith]

I have said before, part of me suspects St.Paul was a little miffed after the listening sessions that it was decided they would beyond with harvest reduction. Maybe causeing some distain for the MDDI and other supporters.

Bingo....its pretty obvious if you "read between the lines" on DNR press releases. Next year look for a return to extremely liberal antlerless tags, especially if winter is less severe and shorter than the last two.

[bigbucks]

I was told by a CO he thought the Central MN areas should have been 2 deer this year, which I agree with, & they likely would be this year. Lot of politics going on. I also agree with deerminator that the silent majority thinks there's plenty of deer. Everybody I talk to around here says the numbers are up for the 2nd straight year. No good reason to switch to lottery.

[smsmith]

No good reason to switch to lottery.

Not lottery here, wish it was

[Getanet]

Ssmith, glad to see you posting here. Someone complimented Beau Liddell in the Camp Ripley thread and I was worried you saw it and had a coronary.

Where is PurpleFloyed by the way? He must have either been put in timeout or is on vacation.

[DaveT]

Would be nice to just have a few simple questions at license time to poll hunters on their area. I know everyone says that would be extremely tough to do, but even every 5 years would be good to take a barometer.

It's extremely easy to do. They have everybody's address already, anybody who purchases or applies for licenses online has provided them with their email address as well.

You want them to do it after the season is over, a few simple questions, what permit area did you hunt primarily, what and where did you harvest, how many days did you hunt, how many deer did you see, rate your satisfaction with the deer numbers on a scale of 1 to 5.

A few years of that data coupled with car/deer collisions will show population trends pretty easily.

[smsmith]

Ssmith, glad to see you posting here. Someone complimented Beau Liddell in the Camp Ripley thread and I was worried you saw it and had a coronary.

Where is PurpleFloyed by the way? He must have either been put in timeout or is on vacation.

I'm recovering nicely, thank you

I've wondered where PF is too, figured he was out chasing ringnecks

[NWKR]

I posted before about the adjustments made to the 2011 pre-fawn dpsm for permit area 156 where I hunt. In 2011 the DNR said the pre-fawn DPSM was 22 and in 2012 they changed that and said the pre-fawn dpsm was actually 13 in 2011. They still have the old #s still published on the main deer hunting webpage.

The incorrect #s are the 2011 spreadsheet and map at the bottom of this webpage:

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/hunting/deer/index.html

You have to go here to see the updated #s and look at 2012 reports:

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/publications/wildlife/index.html

I got an email back from Gino D'Angelo. First I emailed Leslie Mckinley, who told me to email Marret Grund, who I had to send a reminder email too, and I finally got a response from Gino over a month later:

"In short, the procedure for modeling that permit area and others in the forest zone changed in 2012. That was the reason for the change in numerical deer densities over time, but the trends in deer densities between the two models were similar."

So the modeling procedures changed in 2012. DNR doesn't think its a big deal since it still shows the same dpsm trends. I did a comparison of the numbers for 2011 per the 2011 report and the 2012 report for the forest zone permit areas.

There were 36 permit areas in the forest zone that were modeled in 2011. On the 2012 report the 2011 dpsm #s were adjusted downward:

19 permit areas were adjusted downward by 5 or more dpsm

5 of those 19 were adjusted downward by 10 or more dpsm

Only one area, permit area 127, was adjusted upward and that was from 2 dpsm to 3 dpsm.

Looking at the changes for all permit areas modeled in 2011 for the forest zone the difference in prefawn populations is 161k deer. 479k to 318k. In an area of just under 32k sq miles it ends up being 5 dpsm prefawn. With a doe to buck ratio of 4:1 and recruitment of 1 fawn per doe this would end up being a difference of 9 dpsm going into hunting season. So a difference of 290,000 deer! If I remember right the DNR likes to say fawn recruitment is something like 1.9 fawns per doe. That would be 407k deer or 13 dpsm going into hunting season.

But the DNR says we have 1 million deer every year. In 2012 they decided their 2011 AND prior year numbers for the forest zone were off by more than 30% of the total population. WOW!

I DO think that the new numbers in 2012 are more accurate for our overall permit area. But I find it ridiculous that the DNR just goes back and a change to the model that changes the deer population in our state by 300k+ and thinks its no big deal.

I guess we better just let them do their job? What would happen if my numbers at work were off by 30%+? I'll just tell my boss, no big deal the model changed, prior year #s now have the same trend. My poor performance is due to standing corn and wind, and also temps that are too warm, and sometimes too cold at the wrong time, stuff like that, no biggie.

[hockeybc69]

First question that comes to my mind is how many of those areas that were adjusted down in dpsm, have been intensive areas in the recent past?

If there are some, basically the DNR put the hammer down on deer that never even existed there to start with..... thats good management practices.

[SmellEsox]

First question that comes to my mind is how many of those areas that were adjusted down in dpsm, have been intensive areas in the recent past?

If there are some, basically the DNR put the hammer down on deer that never even existed there to start with..... thats good management practices.

Good financial management. ;D

[DaveT]

Almost to 500. I predict some new signatures around the end of November...

http://www.change.org/p/mn-legislative-a...ring-techniques

[BuckSutherland]

For some of you hunters not happy with your results/sightings/etc from deer hunting this year please take the time and sign the petition to audit the DNR.