Audit Push: Time To Act!

[smsmith]

Certainly agree with this. I had posted some links to stories this past winter about hunters in nearly every state complaining about lower harvest numbers and fewer deer seen. Pretty much every state that is considered a "mecca" had hunters up in arms over a lack of deer, including Iowa, WI, Missouri, Kansas, etc. There were different theories tossed around, and certainly some specific reasons such as EHD - but pretty much every state is seeing lower populations and declining hunter satisfaction.

Absolutely true. This fact led to the creation of the National Deer Alliance. Has anybody been following or joined the NDA? I'm curious to hear others' opinions

[SmellEsox]

There can be more but a lot of those things are out of our control. Iowa has less than half the hunters we do. We also have more bigwoods areas and harsher winters than all of the big buck states. Many other states keep their bow seasons out of the rut and the overall mentality of hunters seems to focus on letting younger bucks walk. Until our mentality changes we will just have to work a little harder. I don't think its wise to force change, it only benefits a few people and could turn people away from hunting. Right now we have population issues, lets work on those first and the management later on. I've always said give me a decent population to work with and I can find mature bucks to hunt.

IA has half the hunters, but way less than half the habitat. I do agree with other things you've said. The mentality thing first and foremost. The MN hunting tradition was built around procuring meat. I think the IA mentality is different because their hunting traditions developed way more recently. I wish our mentality would change, but it is extremely slow. So I am definitely with you on the "at least give me a decent population numbers-wise", theory.

[SmellEsox]

I just don't see how APR's can work in a low deer population area. SW MN doesn't have the habitat for large deer populations, its always going to be a lottery zone, then you start restricting what bucks people can shoot, you're going to have a lot of unhappy deer hunters, and you'll probably start losing deer hunters.

I was thinking the same thing. But, I believe buck harvest would only fall off for one year, and then resume at a similar harvest rate after that one bad year. Then, the lottery would actually help maintain a healthy doe population assuring that there will be many new bucks made every year. APR with lottery may be better than what we have in the SE if populations continue to slide down there.

[B. Amish]

I think the a few of the DNR guys admitted that their models were off, I attribute it to learning on the job. The population decline is across the whole country, its not just us. I think a lot of other states got a little to tag happy and now have to live with the consequences. The bad winters just made the problem that much more noticeable. Hopefully everyone can learn from this and they go back to the drawing board with some new ideas.

i think the 'little white lies' of getting the wife, mom, daughter a deer tag so the burly hunters can get another doe and keep their precious buck tag open is more widespread than anyone wants to admit.

also, shooting dem does in the lottery zone and reporting them in the managed or intensive zone that is just across the highway happens way more than folks want to admit as well.

or just shooting that early doe without tagging or reporting it at all.

these things would easliy throw off even the best model. quickly.

[SmellEsox]

i think the 'little white lies' of getting the wife, mom, daughter a deer tag so the burly hunters can get another doe and keep their precious buck tag open is more widespread than anyone wants to admit.

also, shooting dem does in the lottery zone and reporting them in the managed or intensive zone that is just across the highway happens way more than folks want to admit as well.

or just shooting that early doe without tagging or reporting it at all.

these things would easliy throw off even the best model. quickly.

They may factor some level of illegal harvest into the model. I'd be surprised if they didn't.

[smsmith]

Just bringing this back to the forefront for anybody who's late to reading the thread

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/

[daydreamer]

I've only heard crickets since I've forwarded this to my elected about three weeks ago. Might be time to send it off again. Thanks for bringing it back to the top.

[smsmith]

I've only heard crickets since I've forwarded this to my elected about three weeks ago. Might be time to send it off again. Thanks for bringing it back to the top.

Thank you for sending it the first time...and yes, please re-send it. What we're hearing from some legislators is that they're waiting to commit one way or the other based on whether or not their constituents are serious enough to push the issue.

[NWKR]

Figured I could stop lurking and make my first post. One thing that bothers me with the DNR numbers is what their data shows for Permit Area 156 where I hunt. The latest DPSM listed on the main MN DNR Deer Hunting page is for 2011:

http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/recreation/hunting/deer/deer_density_prefawn_spreadsheet11.pdf

2011 shows a DPSM for permit area 156 of 22 DPSM pre-fawn and it was an intensive harvest area. In areas that have farmland I believe it could be that high but I think much of the permit area would be much closer to 15 or less. There are huge areas of woods and swamp that have plenty of wolves and bears.

The DNR did not post the 2012-2013 numbers on the deer hunting page but with a little searching you can find them. They made some large adjustments to the prior year amounts in 2012 reports.

Those reports can be found here:

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

Here is the 2012 Report, deer #s start on page 22:

http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/publications/wildlife/population2012/1-farmland-wildlife.pdf

2011 report showed we had 22 dpsm.

The 2012 report has historical #s going back to 2007. They changed the 2011 DPSM of 22 DPSM to 13 DPSM! Some how their numbers were off by 9 dpsm in 2011, about 40% of their previous guess?

Check your permit areas on those lists! Some show no change when comparing the 2012 report to the 2011. But some show changes as big as the one for our permit area.

Based on reports I have seen that Brooks and Stu have got from the DNR the goal for our area was 11-14 DPSM if I remember correctly. We were still managed in 2012 AND 2013 even though we were at goal based on the DNR's adjusted numbers. In 2013 the harvest dropped 24% from 2012. My understanding is that the harvest is expected to remain steady or increase when having the same harvest designation as the year before. A 24% decrease is definitely significant.

Sounds like a good reason for an audit of the deer management practices to me.

[hockeybc69]

Great post NWKR.

Just another real world example that things dont add up.

Add it to the list. Time for an audit and someone to be held responsible to answer those questionable management practices as well.

[PurpleFloyd]

What farmland holds 22 DPSM? They can't live on black dirt

[smsmith]

What farmland holds 22 DPSM? They can't live on black dirt

Mixed farmland, tamarack/alder/willow/dogwood swamps, forests, grasslands, etc....like the transition zone is comprised of. Plenty of areas along the St. Croix River all the way to Duluth also fit that description. Those areas could easily sustain 22 dpsm pre-fawn. They could easily sustain more than that.

[SmellEsox]

What farmland holds 22 DPSM? They can't live on black dirt

One word. Iowa. Although they don't have 21, its probably closer to 30-100 depending on where you are.

[SmellEsox]

Take a wide swath from SE MN and angle all the way up to NW MN and you have ag mixed with forest that can easily handle 20+ dpsm.

[hockeybc69]

We just had a private forester finish up our Stewardship plan on our property in the heart of the transition zone.

I asked him his thoughts on the carrying capacity of the general Ottertail County lands and if in his personal opinion if the landscape should be able to hold more than 15-19 dpsm that the DNR currently manages for.... He said Absolutely!

Just one guy that walks properties for a living in the transition zone.... Take it for what its worth.

[smsmith]

Ottertail and Todd counties have some of the best deer habitat I've ever seen. Absolutely zero reason why those areas can't be managed for 25 dpsm pre-fawn. The same holds true for many areas in central, eastcentral, and westcentral MN.

[bigbucks]

Absolutely they could, but there's no question the farmers would be getting HAMMERED if they did.

[SmellEsox]

Absolutely they could, but there's no question the farmers would be getting HAMMERED if they did.

Farmers in other states manage with far higher deer densities than what we are discussing. They will sustain more loss no doubt, but HAMMERED? Not so sure about that.

[bigbucks]

I have a buddy in 214, they've been shooting double digit deer off his 300 acres for 20 years. He had a small cornfield last year he quit picking because it wasn't worth picking. He trapped most of the coon off it, not to mention you can tell the difference. Some of the farms in the area are the only ones close to wooded areas so they get drilled.

[smsmith]

Absolutely they could, but there's no question the farmers would be getting HAMMERED if they did.

No...they wouldn't. Most of Todd already is managed for 20 dpsm pre-fawn. Todd has averaged 2 crop depredation complaints annually for the last decade (that from the DNR...they do not claim their own data is accurate however).

Farmers are not going to get "hammered" with 25 dpsm in Todd or Ottertail counties.

[Farmsfulltime]

The reason farmers don't complain to DNR about deer damage is simple , Under old management 5 tags were issued in some areas and they were not being bought or filled as has been proven by registration numbers, so the DNR was doing everything they could to hold farm damage down . The DNR cannot make the hunters buy and fill the tags . In other words if the hunters don't fill them and the animals are there the dnr cannot force anyone to harvest why would farmers complain the DNR did their part to solve deer damage.

[smsmith]

why would farmers complain the DNR did their part to solve deer damage.

Tell that to Bob Marg in SE MN

[Farmsfulltime]

Don't have any idea what the reference is

[Farmsfulltime]

Everyone in the conversation knows more deer = farm owners pay even if the complaints don't go to DNR

[SmellEsox]

The reason farmers don't complain to DNR about deer damage is simple , Under old management 5 tags were issued in some areas and they were not being bought or filled as has been proven by registration numbers, so the DNR was doing everything they could to hold farm damage down . The DNR cannot make the hunters buy and fill the tags . In other words if the hunters don't fill them and the animals are there the dnr cannot force anyone to harvest why would farmers complain the DNR did their part to solve deer damage.

That's what needs to change. Don't hammer the whole zone because of a few crop complaints. Handle it on an individual basis. Wouldn't that work better?

[Farmsfulltime]

We feed the publics deer , That live on our resources and bear the cost on any population changes . Personally I have excellent deer hunting in fact over run with deer here area 225 although some said the count here was 7 deer psm see that on one field nightly .

[Farmsfulltime]

How would that be done . Im not shooting and gutting that many to fill the food self for others that are to lazy. Sure aren't letting every ( deer Hunter ) that shows up on . I have had enough guest hunters here not going that route again

[smsmith]

Everyone in the conversation knows more deer = farm owners pay even if the complaints don't go to DNR

At some point, of course. Nobody I know is advocating for unreasonable numbers of deer. All I know is that in every other midwestern and Great Lakes State they have dpsm's greater than what we have in most all of MN. Somehow or another those farmers are continuing to thrive. Some areas of Waupaca and Shawano counties in WI have dpsm's in excess of 100 pre-fawn. Yet the dairy and row crop farmers continue to do very well (some beautiful farms in those counties). I sure as heck don't want those kinds of numbers.

I don't want ridiculous numbers of deer. However, I don't think 25 dpsm pre-fawn in the transition zone is an unrealistic/unreasonable desire.

[Farmsfulltime]

One of the problems with guest hunters other than litter, trespass onto neighbors,they all, I mean all want to shoot the big one and sit in the trees all fall looking at all the deer that parade by waiting for the big one not solving population problems by harvesting anything other than the big one , Get some new ones in and first thing did you shoot any ? no im waiting for a big one . talk doesn't work gave up on that

[smsmith]

One of the problems with guest hunters other than litter, trespass onto neighbors,they all, I mean all want to shoot the big one and sit in the trees all fall looking at all the deer that parade by waiting for the big one not solving population problems by harvesting anything other than the big one , Get some new ones in and first thing did you shoot any ? no im waiting for a big one . talk doesn't work gave up on that

You're picking the wrong guest hunters

What if there were a group of hunters who had been vetted, who knew ALL they could shoot were does (and still really wanted to hunt), who knew that if they broke a single of your rules/guidelines they'd never return, who had proven themselves to be accurate marksman, who were universally respectful and thankful for the opportunity. Would that change your mind?