Audit Push: Time To Act!

[smsmith]

IA DNR's attempt to deal with crop depredation

http://www.iowadnr.gov/Hunting/LandownerAssistance/WildlifeDamageManagement.aspx

FL Fish and Game's attempt to deal with crop depredation

http://myfwc.com/license/wildlife/nuisance-wildlife/deer-depredation/

An evaluation of OK's crop depredation program

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1448&context=gpwdcwp&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bing.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dwildlife%2Bcrop%2Bdepredation%26go%3DSubmit%26qs%3Dn%26form%3DQBLH%26pq%3Dwildlife%2Bcrop%2Bdepredation%26sc%3D3-16%26sp%3D-1%26sk%3D%26cvid%3Dd294197455794f51bbab4095da07a374#search=%22wildlife%20crop%20depredation%22 (guess you have to copy and paste this one into a new browser window)

MO MDC's crop depredation program

http://mdc.mo.gov/your-property/problem-plants-and-animals/nuisance-native-wildlife/deer-control

WI DNR's crop depredation program

http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/WildlifeHabitat/hunt.html

MN DNR's "wildlife damage management program"

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/grants/habitat/wildlife_damage.html

[Farmsfulltime]

I think the DNR has been responding to the problems and has a good handle on the population . Populations may be a little low in some areas and they have made plenty of changes prior to setting the seasons this year . Bring on the audit it wont change a thing in fact it might change some things that are not wanted. As I have said DNR is a thankless job , when has any group or individual ever thanked them for a job well done no matter which way they go they will be wrong to someone . Audit will probably find understaffing for the level of management wanted , more hires, more paper, more meetings , same deer in the woods

[smsmith]

Bring on the audit...

Good to see we all agree

[smsmith]

If you want to help push the audit forward, simply copy/paste the below, add your legislator's name to the top, and your name to the bottom of this email and add [email protected] to the cc so he can add the elected to the list. Forward any replies you receive from your elected to Brooks using the basecamp addy^^-

ELECTED NAME,

Many in MN are very concerned with the decline in deer numbers in the last 10 years, and in working with the DNR have discovered they either don't know or don't believe the herd has been taken back so far.

Please review the following information, and let us know if you can support the audit described that will be up for review next session.

http://mnbowhunters.org/2014/08/14/is-your-elected-going-to-bat-for-the-states-deer-hunters/

Thank you for your attention, the residents of MN can use your support on this issue.

YOUR NAME

You can find who represents you and how to contact them here: http://www.gis.leg.mn/OpenLayers/districts/

bump

[smsmith]

As far as I know he wasn't around during that time. That gives him the benefit of claiming ignorance but by your posts, while we don't always agree it is obvious you are a smart guy and can separate the fly specs from the pepper.

This is interesting..."becoming the farmland deer project leader at the office in 2004."

http://news.dnr.state.mn.us/2013/10/09/dnr-farmland-wildlife-research-staff-in-madelia-minn/

Appears his tenure and the major herd reduction have similar timelines

[PurpleFloyd]

A couple things.

First- with the deer population and the dnr, by nature they have to be reactionary rather than proactive due to the fact that the landscape, Hunter preferences and acts of nature are variable and constantly change and there is no plan that can accommodate everything hunters want,especially considering their fickle nature.

Just in the past year we have seen a total 180 switch from saving young bucks and shooting does instead to protecting does and taking small bucks instead.

We went from a decade of more moderate winters to one of the worst in a very long time and there is no way to produce stable numbers with that in place.

Along with that there is also the fact that many other species are currently in decline and there is the lijelyhood that the reason is something we don't even realize now and that no audit would address.

From the boom that started around here in about 2005 the pheasant population is down about 90% and females are protected. The bear population seems to be down and the population of muskrats in this area went from terribly high in the 90's to nearly zero today.

[wally243]

"Just in the past year we have seen a total 180 switch from saving young bucks and shooting does instead to protecting does and taking small bucks instead."

These people needed there head examined anyway!!! This isn't rocket science boys. Pretty simple. I am a farmer and live on the farm my whole life. I have never heard one person whine about deer damaging crops. If that was the case take care of it. It isn't that hard.

[jentz]

Wally243 You got something there.I live in farm country also,Never heard complaints either! However farm practices have taken down many species>Refer to the previous post HERE>>Along with that there is also the fact that many other species are currently in decline and there is the lijelyhood that the reason is something we don't even realize now and that no audit would address.<< UMM Loss of habitat black dirt fence to fence? Land owners clearing homes being built in AG areas then those same owners complain of oders not accoicated with city folk! So many facters!

I always assumed a AUDIT has to do with $$$ Is this what so many say has to be done a audit where $$ go??Whats that going to do.Does produce young!Like a farmer without the females your going nowhere

[creepworm]

Wally243 You got something there.I live in farm country also,Never heard complaints either! However farm practices have taken down many species>Refer to the previous post HERE>>Along with that there is also the fact that many other species are currently in decline and there is the lijelyhood that the reason is something we don't even realize now and that no audit would address.<< UMM Loss of habitat black dirt fence to fence? Land owners clearing homes being built in AG areas then those same owners complain of oders not accoicated with city folk! So many facters!

I always assumed a AUDIT has to do with $$$ Is this what so many say has to be done a audit where $$ go??Whats that going to do.Does produce young!Like a farmer without the females your going nowhere

See, the thing is, in farm country the vast majority of the land is in farm land. Low deer population and a majority of land in crop production equals an almost unnoticeable amount of crop damage.

In the transition zone, where the OP wants higher deer populations, there is considerably less ground in crop production. Where I hunt in zone 240 it is roughly 50/50 cropland and habitat. Deer populations are much higher in this area than farm country with a smaller amount of land in crops. Less land in crops and much more deer equals a much greater percent of crop damage.

[PurpleFloyd]

See, the thing is, in farm country the vast majority of the land is in farm land. Low deer population and a majority of land in crop production equals an almost unnoticeable amount of crop damage.

In the transition zone, where the OP wants higher deer populations, there is considerably less ground in crop production. Where I hunt in zone 240 it is roughly 50/50 cropland and habitat. Deer populations are much higher in this area than farm country with a smaller amount of land in crops. Less land in crops and much more deer equals a much greater percent of crop damage.

That is contrary to the posts on this forum. The opinion is that there are no deer in that area to speak of and thus very little crop damage except what the coons cause

[mntatonka]

That is contrary to the posts on this forum. The opinion is that there are no deer in that area to speak of and thus very little crop damage except what the coons cause

coons wearing deer-hoof shoes

[DaveT]

Wally243 You got something there.I live in farm country also,Never heard complaints either! However farm practices have taken down many species>Refer to the previous post HERE>>Along with that there is also the fact that many other species are currently in decline and there is the lijelyhood that the reason is something we don't even realize now and that no audit would address.<< UMM Loss of habitat black dirt fence to fence? Land owners clearing homes being built in AG areas then those same owners complain of oders not accoicated with city folk! So many facters!

I always assumed a AUDIT has to do with $$$ Is this what so many say has to be done a audit where $$ go??Whats that going to do.Does produce young!Like a farmer without the females your going nowhere

I have no clue what I just read. Proper punctuation is critical when you're trying to convey a point with words. I'm unsure if this post is pro or anti audit.

[jentz]

Thanks Dave T for answering for who the question was posed.You must be a english teacher who has a hard time with commoner speak.

creep worm I believe yer a farmer,Thanks The transion zone must be where deer destroy crops? I thought here around Willmar was the zone where prarie meets the forest or sparce forest to total prairie.I hunt my home area and area 214.Big difference 214 even has more pheasants.It also had a 5 deer limit for past years The first few there were quite a few deer since 2011 they dissapeared.

[DaveT]

Thanks Dave T for answering for who the question was posed.

[smsmith]

I always assumed a AUDIT has to do with $$$ Is this what so many say has to be done a audit where $$ go??

The audit being proposed is not a financial audit. It is an audit of the biology (population modeling, data inputs, public stakeholder process, etc.) being used by the MN DNR.

[SmellEsox]

I'm no DNR cheerleader, but I don't hold them in disdain as you seem to. I'm wondering what you think their motivation was to reduce numbers if it was not the groups I listed?

If you look at what Universities taught these biologists for the last 20-30 years, it is more pest management than management to satisfy hunters. It is more about ecology and protecting forest fauna and/or biota, not keeping hunters happy.

[PEATMOSS]

We hunters are the primary financial supporters of deer management. I think that entitles us to, not just a seat at the table, but a seat at the head of the table.

I don't believe that it entitles us to the only seat at the table. Further, we as hunters have become rather divided with regards to how we want the herd managed. There is a vocal and selfish faction of the deer hunting community that has become obsessed with antlers as the primary management objective. This only further complicates matters.

[LandDr]

I would agree with Essox very much. I used to be a Stewardship Plan writer and we were constantly corrected to do more "timber" management. At workshops the teachers would discuss how food plots were not needed and that you would have deer without them, etc. Employees we are getting out of college are very much "preservation" orientated...restore and protect the woods, restore and protect the prairie, etc. You can see this whole mentality in how govt and non-profits are managing their lands. How many public lands do you see with specific designs of winter thermal cover and excellent food sources? Not many...only ones I can really think of are down around the Marshal area.

This is a huge issue. It is a line drawn in the sand between interests that want public lands "restored" and managed to what they used to be and interests that want better hunting opportunities. With the high end prairies being established, cows grazing public lands, no thermal cover or food plots being planned...I would say that interests in restoration and preservation are at the "entire table". I have been at the "table", but if you are not in line with their way of thinking, you don't sit at the table long.

[SmellEsox]

We hunters are the primary financial supporters of deer management. I think that entitles us to, not just a seat at the table, but a seat at the head of the table.

I don't believe that it entitles us to the only seat at the table. Further, we as hunters have become rather divided with regards to how we want the herd managed. There is a vocal and selfish faction of the deer hunting community that has become obsessed with antlers as the primary management objective. This only further complicates matters.

There has always been an obsession with antlers. When I started hunting back in the 1970s there were big buck contests and pictures in the papers. The proliferation of whitetail specific magazines came out in the early 80s. Why are guys that want big bucks "selfish", but guys that want to shoot whatever they want not selfish?

But that is beside the point of this thread. IMVHO, both meat hunters and big buck hunters have been short-changed. By having high numbers of antlerless permits, we have a low population of young deer. Nobody's happy (except for a few). Also IMVHO, hunter satisfaction needs to be a higher priority to DNR Wildlife. We are funding deer management as you say, so we should have a little more attention and priority from DNR.

[smsmith]

I have been at the "table", but if you are not in line with their way of thinking, you don't sit at the table long.

I don't doubt you for a minute, as I've heard the same thing from QDMA and MDHA. However, my response to that is "its OUR table". The DNR works for the citizens of this state. WE are THEIR employers. The problem as I see it is that hunters have just sat back and allowed the other special interests to take over. We grumble among ourselves, but when its time to get involved many figure "somebody else" will take care of it. Nobody has been taking care of it...its time we change our perspective on how things work here. The DNR doesn't run the show....they run the show the way the squeakiest wheel demands it be run.

[LandDr]

Like I said Smith, I am behind you 100%. I have been working on it since 1994 and I am pretty much blacklisted from any meetings or discussions. Everything from my discussions on needing waterfowl food sources in our waters, to pheasant and deer management. The preservationists don't want to hear it and they certainly don't want to be exposed. Exposing it comes at an expense.

[smsmith]

Like I said Smith, I am behind you 100%. I have been working on it since 1994 and I am pretty much blacklisted from any meetings or discussions. Everything from my discussions on needing waterfowl food sources in our waters, to pheasant and deer management. The preservationists don't want to hear it and they certainly don't want to be exposed. Exposing it comes at an expense.

That is utter (profane word) IMHO. To think that the state can remove someone from the discussion because they may have contrary ideas is just wrong. Any well run business is aware of the fact that just packing the workplace with sycophants is going to lead to stale, outdated ideas.

[LandDr]

I agree. But when I am vocal about it, it hurts my business. I quit my NRCS job in 1994 because I wanted to get more done without all of the red tape and political dump in the way. Well...I found myself even deeper into it because of the large scale we were working on. We used to do over 11,000 acres of native prairie plantings, over 200,000 trees, numerous food plots, wetland restorations, etc, etc. But in 2001, the govt and non-profits started selling seed, planting, prep, burning, etc in direct competition with private companies that were already providing those products and services...they are using tax payer money to do what was already provided. They have pretty much beaten out every company that was providing assistance to landowners...and have taken control.

You are going into the belly of the beast. Be well prepared.

[Farmsfulltime]

Hunters take a seat at the head of the table that's laughable . Ask 20 hunter what quality deer hunting is and you will get 20 different answers these threads are a good example . Maybe certain individuals want to set at the head of the table to impose what they think quality deer hunting is . Do the audit find out that the DNR is doing as good of a job that can be done under hard conditions , maybe add some budget and personel. The same people will not be happy ect . In the meantime those of us that can work on our own properties and will ,, have all the deer we want , enjoy our hunting and do what we can to prevent excessive deer browsing on ag Carry on Im done this horse is dead enough for me

[BLACKJACK]

Less land in crops and much more deer equals a much greater percent of crop damage.

You got it!!! When I plant a small 2 acre soybean plot next to the farmers 40 acres of soybeans, I get some deer browsing but not enough to worry about. When I plant a 3/4 acre plot in the woods, the deer won't let it get above 2 inches.

[DaveT]

Carry on Im done this horse is dead enough for me

[hockeybc69]

I know of a few people that have all the deer they need and just cant understand that there is more to deer hunting than what they personally see every year.

There is an obvious problem with the general management of the deer.

The examples are very clear that how its being done in some areas is like throwing darts and hoping they(DNR) hits a bullseye.

The audit request is simply a request to get those things ironed out better.

It will never be perfect. I am certain of that. But it sure could be a helluva lot better than what is being done now for many parts of the state.

[smsmith]

Another example of the DNR blaming hunters for their lack of success. From the Star Tribune....

Minnesota's pheasants and pheasant hunters are hitting rock-bottom.

Just 62,000 pheasant hunters went afield last fall, and they bagged only 169,000 roosters. That's the fewest hunters and lowest harvest in 27 years. Hunter numbers declined 19 percent and the harvest was down 32 percent from 2012.

Hunters likely were responding to a huge loss of habitat, poor nesting weather and a corresponding large drop in the ringneck population in recent years. Last year, the pheasant population dropped 29 percent, and the state has recently lost more than 100 square miles of grassland habitat in the pheasant range.

"It's likely the result of people seeing poor reports…and they just don't bother buying a license,'' said Lou Cornicelli, DNR wildlife research manager. "It's not like deer hunting, where regardless of density, most hunters buy a license.''

In particular, pay attention to the last sentence. Deer hunters have been taken for patsies...The DNR figures we'll all just keep buying licenses every year even though they manage for fewer and fewer deer. Just another example of why some outside evaluation of how they're managing the deer herd is necessary.

[PurpleFloyd]

Those pheasant harvest numbers of birds are down because we harvest too many females?

[Jameson]

Those pheasant harvest numbers of birds are down because we harvest too many females?

not enough coyotes. similar to wolves up north.