Audit Push: Time To Act!

[PurpleFloyd]

Are zones 221-225 the only ones that matter in the state? Why is the audit push so narrowly focused on such a small section of the state?

Do you have any hard data that shows what you contend is happening in this narrow section of areas is indicative of the the state as a whole?

[Archerysniper]

I hunt 225 and 227, it is prime agriculture land and I have not seen a deer in any of the fields or roadsides in over a month. I leave my house between 5 and 6 am every work day depending on where my job site is.

Prior to our 7 deer years sitting on a stand you would see at least one deer a night, now I can sit the entire gun season and into muzzleloader season and see 2 deer. Bow season open this Sat and the way the population is around here I will be happy to take the first mature deer that comes by.

[laker1]

Not against party hunting. But statement was made party hunting doesn't increase the number of deer we take if were allowed only one.

Party hunting does on average increase the harvest of deer substantially due to the efficiency of more than one hunter helping to fill a individual tag or the party filling out.

It reality if everyone filled one tag,we would be over harvesting with over 400,000+ deer taken. There are times and places party hunting has resulted in lower deer numbers at times. Especially when the population is on the brink of being over harvested.

Example there are some groups that drive a lot,maybe 20 hunters,well if you have that many driving you will move deer(to me that is not hunting that's killing,but legal),sometimes one hunter ends up shooting 10 deer and the party does fill out.

[smsmith]

Are zones 221-225 the only ones that matter in the state? Why is the audit push so narrowly focused on such a small section of the state?

Zones 221 and 225 are NOT the only ones that matter in the state. The audit push is NOT narrowly focused on such a small section of the state, the proposed audit will look at the state's deer management practices as a whole.

I will make the statement that it appears there are major issues with the deer model and data inputs in central and eastcentral areas...with a single area manager impacting many of those areas. That's not to say there aren't issues with the deer population model and data inputs statewide...just that there appears to be more significant/glaringly obvious issues with the areas that Beau Liddell manages.

[SmellEsox]

PF, I look at the graph on the first page of the DNR Deer Harvest summary and I see little or no evidence of an increase in the statewide deer herd. Where do you see an increase under current management in the last 10 years? A slight blip in 2006 and a slight blip in 2010. Other than that the trend line in harvest is obviously precipitously down. This despite a long string of mild to average winters until 2012-2013 (which was really easy until February) and 2013-2014. This decline can only be explained by antlerless harvest IMO. And I don't know how you can say antlerless licenses are similar to historical levels. I don't know how to interpret all the different licenses over the years, but for large parts of the state, we've had the opportunity to shoot vast numbers of antlerless deer through a variety of different licenses.

I'm also not sure I agree with your 1 deer/hunter thing. Wouldn't that allow the herd to explode in number and get to nuisance levels? Do you think 1 deer/hunter would be effective in controlling deer numbers?

[PurpleFloyd]

PF, I look at the graph on the first page of the DNR Deer Harvest summary and I see little or no evidence of an increase in the statewide deer herd. Where do you see an increase under current management in the last 10 years? A slight blip in 2006 and a slight blip in 2010. Other than that the trend line in harvest is obviously precipitously down. This despite a long string of mild to average winters until 2012-2013 (which was really easy until February) and 2013-2014. This decline can only be explained by antlerless harvest IMO. And I don't know how you can say antlerless licenses are similar to historical levels. I don't know how to interpret all the different licenses over the years, but for large parts of the state, we've had the opportunity to shoot vast numbers of antlerless deer through a variety of different licenses.

I'm also not sure I agree with your 1 deer/hunter thing. Wouldn't that allow the herd to explode in number and get to nuisance levels? Do you think 1 deer/hunter would be effective in controlling deer numbers?

There are more charts than just the graph on the first page. There is much better information on the chart that shows the 20 year history of harvest broken down by season and including yearly totals for antlered and antlerless. If you read them it is obvious that the current harvest levels are in line with what they were in the 90's and with those levels we were able to increase harvest significantly in the early 2000's. If that level and thus the current level were too high to provide a stable population then the harvest levels of the 2000's would not be possible because there wouldn't be any deer left,as is contended now.

[SmellEsox]

There are more charts than just the graph on the first page. There is much better information on the chart that shows the 20 year history of harvest broken down by season and including yearly totals for antlered and antlerless. If you read them it is obvious that the current harvest levels are in line with what they were in the 90's and with those levels we were able to increase harvest significantly in the early 2000's. If that level and thus the current level were too high to provide a stable population then the harvest levels of the 2000's would not be possible because there wouldn't be any deer left,as is contended now.

The difference is that in the 90's most antlerless tags were given out by lottery. It basically gave you a HC permit, but not everyone got one. I remember waiting for the regs to come out so I could see where the closest "bonus tag zone" was located so I could shoot an extra deer. The last 12 years, I've been able to shoot anywhere from 2-7 deer in this area and they could all be antlerless deer. In the past, it was 1 deer limit here (in the 90's) and occasionally a 2 deer limit, but 1 had to be a buck. That is why the population increased in the 90's. Now, with the 2-7 deer limits, the deer herd is being suppressed. Here's an example: 221. The doe harvests (does and doe fawns) since 2003 under 5 and 7 deer limits (there was a 2 deer limit in 2012) 1480 (2003), 1455, 1370, 1661, 1948 (2007), 860, 759, 924, 832, 685, 843 (2013). You can see there will be no recovery under 5 deer limits here. The area manager wanted it to be 7 deer this fall. I know you are sick of hearing about this zone, but that is what is going on around central and east central MN. I would contend that the problem is in DNR's population estimates. I don't think harvests are accurately portraying what populations were now or back in the 1990s. I know I saw way more deer back then than I do now. Even after the tough winters in the mid to late 1990's, I saw more deer than I do now. Something isn't right and that is why I support an audit to scrutinize their model. And I hope that as a result, they pay a lot more attention to deer management instead of subsidizing all their other wildlife management. They need to invest in the most lucrative and popular game animal in the state.

[smsmith]

They need to invest in the most lucrative and popular game animal in the state.

That's the part I struggle to understand. Why our DNR wouldn't do their absolute best to keep the "cash cow" bringing in the most revenue possible is beyond me. Deer need to be looked at as valuable assets to be managed well rather than vermin that have to be dealt with.

[Jameson]

How could the DNR of gotten any more cash from their cash cow the last 10 years?

[hockeybc69]

He is pointing out the importance of deer and why the DNR doesnt have them at the top of the list for managing to the best of their abilities....

[Jameson]

It doesn't matter about deer reports, the deer hunters will still go hunt.

I can't see how the DNR could have managed to get any more cash from their cash cow the last ten years. They have managed the cash cow perfectly.

[PurpleFloyd]

The difference is that in the 90's most antlerless tags were given out by lottery. It basically gave you a HC permit, but not everyone got one. I remember waiting for the regs to come out so I could see where the closest "bonus tag zone" was located so I could shoot an extra deer. The last 12 years, I've been able to shoot anywhere from 2-7 deer in this area and they could all be antlerless deer. In the past, it was 1 deer limit here (in the 90's) and occasionally a 2 deer limit, but 1 had to be a buck. That is why the population increased in the 90's. Now, with the 2-7 deer limits, the deer herd is being suppressed. Here's an example: 221. The doe harvests (does and doe fawns) since 2003 under 5 and 7 deer limits (there was a 2 deer limit in 2012) 1480 (2003), 1455, 1370, 1661, 1948 (2007), 860, 759, 924, 832, 685, 843 (2013). You can see there will be no recovery under 5 deer limits here. The area manager wanted it to be 7 deer this fall. I know you are sick of hearing about this zone, but that is what is going on around central and east central MN. I would contend that the problem is in DNR's population estimates. I don't think harvests are accurately portraying what populations were now or back in the 1990s. I know I saw way more deer back then than I do now. Even after the tough winters in the mid to late 1990's, I saw more deer than I do now. Something isn't right and that is why I support an audit to scrutinize their model. And I hope that as a result, they pay a lot more attention to deer management instead of subsidizing all their other wildlife management. They need to invest in the most lucrative and popular game animal in the state.

You have no argument from me in regards to the DNR policy of letting hunters buy multiple licenses and in no way do I support allowing 5-7 permits.

I think that where we are not meshing is you are looking at the micro in that you see the problem in those few counties between the Metro and Hinckley while I am using statewide stats(Macro) that tends to balance things out.

My opinion on the lottery is that it is working well and the number of them issued is down pretty sharply and on the low end of the 20 year average so that is why I make the case that further reductions of the lottery process are not necessary.

If your area continues to have that high of a limit I would look into how many hunters are actually hitting this number and taking that many deer considering the consensus is that in that area you probably won't see more than one deer in a season anyway. If people are buying 7 bonus licenses and only seeing one deer, it may not be impacting the population any more. That being said it seems to be a foolish practice.

But as I said, the state as a whole is diverse and reports from my relatives in this area that farm say that the population looks to be higher than last year and we had one of the best years ever.(Micro in relation to my area) We could actually use a few more does harvested around here but I won't complain if we have a few more left at the end of the season.

[smsmith]

They have managed the cash cow perfectly.

You don't anticipate a significant reduction in deer license revenue this year? I do. Doesn't seem "perfect" to me

[Bureaucrat]

In our party, the DNR is down two non-resident licenses already.

[smsmith]

In our party, the DNR is down two non-resident licenses already.

Down one archery license from me. My buddy from WI comes up to firearm hunt with me, so...no reason to give the DNR another $30 this year. The only reason he pays the non-res cost to hunt here is because he heads to the Dakotas to pheasant hunt after he deer hunts here a few days. He used to pheasant hunt in southern MN before and after deer hunting here, but won't be doing that anymore due to the lack of birds. It won't be long and he won't be paying to hunt deer in MN anymore either.

First year since '85 or '86 I haven't bought an archery license.

[ANYFISH2]

Purple, it is not so much at a micro level. It is about Our DNR using the tools they have, in the most effective manner, managing the population at the most exceptable level (debatable where that is between interests), and maintaining that level the best mother nature will allow.

This pertains to the entire state, every unit, zone, and permit area should be managed accordingly and with accountability.

The talk of excess permits of course is talk of past years. The DNR's VERY conservative limits/permit allocation this year is a big step in the right direction (WAY more conservative than I imagined). But I feel it was directed this way because of the sudden outcry this past winter, more so than what any of thier models showed or what thier intentions were last fall.

I honestly believe Minnesota has some of the best biologists around, they just need to clean up some of the inaccuracies that a neglected model has created.

[laker1]

Statewide us hunters pretty much got the season we asked for this winter. Now some will complain they can hunt only one season because they shot a deer already. That is the way it was for decades.

We went thru a period in almost all midwest states and eastern whitetail states of very liberal seasons due to fear of over population and CWD etc.. Many other states are also going back to a conservative season setup.

One thing we can still look at is we have one of the most disease herds in this Country. Maybe the season types we had made a difference?

[Jameson]

...You don't anticipate a significant reduction in deer license revenue this year? I do. Doesn't seem "perfect" to me

The deer hunters will hunt deer no matter what the deer reports are.

Losing every archery license wouldn't be significant IMO. Make a huge dent (50%)in the firearms buck tags and you make a significant dent in the license revenue.

Hunters here have been trained that we can't kill too many bucks. The hunters don't have any moral conflicts about going hunting for bucks. A very few may wonder if it's worth the cash for a hunt with so slim chances of success, but many more just care about seeing family and or getting away from family. It's not really much about the actual number of deer in the woods for most. So, no I don't see a significant drop in license sales.

[smsmith]

I don't know how there can't be significant reduction in deer license revenue this year?

[mntatonka]

I don't know how there can't be significant reduction in deer license revenue this year?

there will be a slight reduction in revenue, but I don't think it'll be significant. I'd bet hunter numbers will still be roughly the same though. They'll still sell roughly 375-400k resident firearms licenses, 90k resident archery, and 50k muzzleloader.

After looking at it again, the bonus permit sales will probably be down by about half, maybe more. That equates to roughly $750,000 in lost license revenue from deer hunting, or a loss of less than 5%, especially once you include non-resident, which is $2million on average.

[SmellEsox]

You have no argument from me in regards to the DNR policy of letting hunters buy multiple licenses and in no way do I support allowing 5-7 permits.

I think that where we are not meshing is you are looking at the micro in that you see the problem in those few counties between the Metro and Hinckley while I am using statewide stats(Macro) that tends to balance things out.

My opinion on the lottery is that it is working well and the number of them issued is down pretty sharply and on the low end of the 20 year average so that is why I make the case that further reductions of the lottery process are not necessary.

If your area continues to have that high of a limit I would look into how many hunters are actually hitting this number and taking that many deer considering the consensus is that in that area you probably won't see more than one deer in a season anyway. If people are buying 7 bonus licenses and only seeing one deer, it may not be impacting the population any more. That being said it seems to be a foolish practice.

But as I said, the state as a whole is diverse and reports from my relatives in this area that farm say that the population looks to be higher than last year and we had one of the best years ever.(Micro in relation to my area) We could actually use a few more does harvested around here but I won't complain if we have a few more left at the end of the season.

Yes, I agree I am focusing on my little world here. It frustrates me because it is some of the most fantastic whitetail habitat on the continent and it is managed terribly. Goals are set low and most hunters believe the actual population is below that goal. Harvest intensity is kept high so the population is low and young. Hardly a desirable deer herd.

[hockeybc69]

Quote:

Yes, I agree I am focusing on my little world here.

And I am supporting his little world because I dont want to see whats happening in that area, end up happening in other areas. This craziness needs to stop.

[Getanet]

there will be a slight reduction in revenue, but I don't think it'll be significant. I'd bet hunter numbers will still be roughly the same though. They'll still sell roughly 375-400k resident firearms licenses, 90k resident archery, and 50k muzzleloader.

After looking at it again, the bonus permit sales will probably be down by about half, maybe more. That equates to roughly $750,000 in lost license revenue from deer hunting, or a loss of less than 5%, especially once you include non-resident, which is $2million on average.

I would agree with this take. Revenues might be lower, because they won't be offering nearly as many bonus permits as in the past. But I don't expect there to be any noticeable difference in the number of hunters in the field.

[SmellEsox]

My opinion on the lottery is that it is working well and the number of them issued is down pretty sharply and on the low end of the 20 year average so that is why I make the case that further reductions of the lottery process are not necessary.

I'm not sure I am following you here. I think the herd was in much better shape when they used the lottery system. With the current system harvest pressure has increased dramatically. They went from pruning to mowing so to speak. I think the current management system (IH, Managed, HC, Lottery) is a good one, but seems like they don't know when to step off the gas pedal. In other words, they are keeping harvest pressure high even when we've dropped below goal. They err on the side of liberal rather than conservative. They also need to raise those goals as most of us in this area have been bellering about for years now. In all honesty, compared to the 1990's, the regs for this year in this area are still liberal. Going HC has basically given everyone an antlerless permit. It will be interesting to see if this is conservative enough to allow the population to increase. I hope it does and it probably will if the weather cooperates. But HC definitely allows considerable antlerless harvest.

[PurpleFloyd]

By the lottery I am talking about the statewide process of applying for a limited number of doe tags allocated across the state.

Those numbers are lower as a whole across the state and if those alone are issued the population will be fine.

The bonus tags you talk about where guys are buying additional tags to take 5-7 deer are no issued state wide. I cannot get them where I hunt and they are only used in select areas of the state.Those are the tags that should be issued sparingly if at all and only in very small areas where population numbers are too high. Your area sounds like it fits that descririon and if it is the case I agree with you that those bonus tags should be eliminated unless it is shown that normal hunting seasons are not controlling the population.

[PurpleFloyd]

I don't know how there can't be significant reduction in deer license revenue this year?

Probably. But that is a good thing,correct?

[SmellEsox]

Outdoor News, Bowhunting forecast article. Leslie quotes, "A reduced harvest this year doesn't mean the state's deer herd is down. It will be more a reflection of conservative regulations".

Seriously!!? These people are out of touch and their model is awful.

[smsmith]

Probably. But that is a good thing,correct?

"Good" for our future deer herd...hopefully yes. "Good" for the DNR...no.

That was my point from previous posts. Managing their largest revenue generating species poorly enough that it impacts revenue...not exactly "perfect". More than 75% of deer license revenue went to non-deer management activities within the DNR last year (and does historically as well), managing our deer herd so as to not maximize its long term revenue stream is pi$$ poor management IMO.

I'll agree with Jameson that up until this year the DNR likely did maximize deer license revenue. The problem (as I see it) is that they did so at the risk of the long term revenue stream. If they maintain a more conservative season structure and we get some "normal" winters/springs, this may just be a 1-3 year loss of revenue. If they don't, then they'll continue to jeopardize the cash cow.

[smsmith]

Outdoor News, Bowhunting forecast article. Leslie quotes, "A reduced harvest this year doesn't mean the state's deer herd is down. It will be more a reflection of conservative regulations".

Seriously!!? These people are out of touch and their model is awful.

Exactly the kind of dump that makes me think an audit is the only way we're ever going to get a change of thinking within the DNR deer management folks.

That statement also leads me to believe that the conservative regulations we have this year are going to be "one and done". We'll be right back to the slaughter next year.

Edit..it also makes me think the DNR is kicking in the PR machine for the upcoming stakeholder meetings. It would be a tough sell for them to maintain our current herd size (which I strongly believe is their desire) if they're releasing statements saying the herd is down.

[Farmsfulltime]

cynical ? ok we agree on two things now ,as ive said do the audit that will clear up any hard feelings some have for the DNR , or are we destined for this process to be not good enough no matter who does it ? Can some accept the process no matter the outcome . No matter the outcome Im sure there will still be plenty of deer to hunt .