Audit Push: Time To Act!

[smsmith]

cynical ?

Your cynicism is my pragmatism

[SmellEsox]

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 .

I'll be fine with whatever outcome. If they are way off, I'll be happy if they correct things and better hunting is a result. If the model is accurate, then we push for higher goals because current goals are providing unsatisfactory hunting.

[willyfahey]

So why is it that we have complaints from private land owners, again? If you own your own property, you can manage it yourself for whatever outcome you so choose. If you want less deer, bring in as many hunters as possible with tags and have at it. If you want more deer, take the time and money to invest in your property to provide for you what you can get out of it. But, it's all about what you want yet there's always someone that wants something different. I just don't get why some of you think that a large bureaucratic agency is going to make a difference one way or the other. This type of reliance on the government to solve your issues is what the real problem is. The DNR does not have the resources to micro manage our natural resources. As far as from a public lands perspective, it's a different story. Their focus should be preserving, maintaining and even growing the public lands and not everybody's individual properties.

Reality is the DNR operates as on a business model; what can be done to increase incoming revenue. If you want change, audits are not the answer. Especially if you already "know" the outcome of said audit. There is a heritage of hunting in MN that goes back over 100 years (and it's not for the biggest buck) and that's the only grounds of accountability the DNR has to the citizens of this state. Everything else is all conjecture. The problem is most of you have lost sight of that and want the state managed like a ranch in Texas. Hunting has(or shall I say had) a tradition in this state of sustenance and family, not a business or a sport. The same agency you want audits for is the same one that con'd you into believing the latter.

[Jameson]

So why is it that we have complaints from private land owners, again? If you own your own property, you can manage it yourself for whatever outcome you so choose.

Because they are not happy. Why else does anyone complain?

The state owns the deer until they are shot by a hunter. Landowners own land.

[smsmith]

So why is it that we have complaints from private land owners, again? If you own your own property, you can manage it yourself for whatever outcome you so choose. If you want less deer, bring in as many hunters as possible with tags and have at it. If you want more deer, take the time and money to invest in your property to provide for you what you can get out of it. But, it's all about what you want yet there's always someone that wants something different. I just don't get why some of you think that a large bureaucratic agency is going to make a difference one way or the other. This type of reliance on the government to solve your issues is what the real problem is. The DNR does not have the resources to micro manage our natural resources. As far as from a public lands perspective, it's a different story. Their focus should be preserving, maintaining and even growing the public lands and not everybody's individual properties.

Reality is the DNR operates as on a business model; what can be done to increase incoming revenue. If you want change, audits are not the answer. Especially if you already "know" the outcome of said audit. There is a heritage of hunting in MN that goes back over 100 years (and it's not for the biggest buck) and that's the only grounds of accountability the DNR has to the citizens of this state. Everything else is all conjecture. The problem is most of you have lost sight of that and want the state managed like a ranch in Texas. Hunting has(or shall I say had) a tradition in this state of sustenance and family, not a business or a sport. The same agency you want audits for is the same one that con'd you into believing the latter.

And once again the public land hunter takes it in the shorts from the DNR and private land owners. Completely against the North American Model of Wildlife Consevation...that's how we manage now? May as well move to Europe

[PurpleFloyd]

So why is it that we have complaints from private land owners, again? If you own your own property, you can manage it yourself for whatever outcome you so choose. If you want less deer, bring in as many hunters as possible with tags and have at it. If you want more deer, take the time and money to invest in your property to provide for you what you can get out of it. But, it's all about what you want yet there's always someone that wants something different. I just don't get why some of you think that a large bureaucratic agency is going to make a difference one way or the other. This type of reliance on the government to solve your issues is what the real problem is. The DNR does not have the resources to micro manage our natural resources. As far as from a public lands perspective, it's a different story. Their focus should be preserving, maintaining and even growing the public lands and not everybody's individual properties.

Reality is the DNR operates as on a business model; what can be done to increase incoming revenue. If you want change, audits are not the answer. Especially if you already "know" the outcome of said audit. There is a heritage of hunting in MN that goes back over 100 years (and it's not for the biggest buck) and that's the only grounds of accountability the DNR has to the citizens of this state. Everything else is all conjecture. The problem is most of you have lost sight of that and want the state managed like a ranch in Texas. Hunting has(or shall I say had) a tradition in this state of sustenance and family, not a business or a sport. The same agency you want audits for is the same one that con'd you into believing the latter.

Nailed it.

[laker1]

That is what really scares me the Texas ranch scenario. Wisconsin got that Texas dude to do their audit and he came up with Texas solutions like if you are a corporate group,big land ownership you could maybe do whatever you want.

That is not Minnesota style.

[smsmith]

That is what really scares me the Texas ranch scenario. Wisconsin got that Texas dude to do their audit and he came up with Texas solutions like if you are a corporate group,big land ownership you could maybe do whatever you want.

That is not Minnesota style.

What?

[PurpleFloyd]

That is what really scares me the Texas ranch scenario. Wisconsin got that Texas dude to do their audit and he came up with Texas solutions like if you are a corporate group,big land ownership you could maybe do whatever you want.

That is not Minnesota style.

[smsmith]

I know who Kroll is and what you posted is all old news PF. There was a lot of talk in WI when Kroll was hired, most of the naysayers are now relatively happy (not all of course).

My "what" comment was in reference to laker saying that large/corporate landowners can do "what they want" in WI now. Completely inaccurate. All hunters still have to follow DNR rules. If laker is referring to the DMAP program that Kroll recommended and WI is now implementing...his statement is inaccurate. DMAP is a well accepted practice in many states. It allows landowners (think you need 40 acres) to work with the DNR to develop a plan for deer on your property. The DNR issues tags based on the joint plan....it is a great tool for those landowners who have too many deer. Some of the farmers who post on here would benefit greatly from a DMAP plan.

[PurpleFloyd]

I know who Kroll is and what you posted is all old news PF. There was a lot of talk in WI when Kroll was hired, most of the naysayers are now relatively happy (not all of course).

My "what" comment was in reference to laker saying that large/corporate landowners can do "what they want" in WI now. Completely inaccurate. All hunters still have to follow DNR rules. If laker is referring to the DMAP program that Kroll recommended and WI is now implementing...his statement is inaccurate. DMAP is a well accepted practice in many states. It allows landowners (think you need 40 acres) to work with the DNR to develop a plan for deer on your property. The DNR issues tags based on the joint plan....it is a great tool for those landowners who have too many deer. Some of the farmers who post on here would benefit greatly from a DMAP plan.

[smsmith]

Unless that plan impacts the hunt of people hunting public land adjoining said property. Correct?

Correct. That is all part of having a plan written up in conjunction with the DNR. They aren't going to allow overharvest on private land. Another thing that came out of Kroll's audit was issuing separate public and private land tags. That should allow public lands to avoid overharvests as well. WI is trying new and innovative things to improve their deer hunting and deer management. Does that mean they'll work? Who knows. It does however mean that deer are recognized as assets to be valued and managed well in WI.

I get pretty tired of hearing "that's not how things have always been done here." Who cares? Just because we did things the same way in the 70's, 80's, 90's as now doesn't mean that's the right way to do them

[PurpleFloyd]

Correct. That is all part of having a plan written up in conjunction with the DNR. They aren't going to allow overharvest on private land. Another thing that came out of Kroll's audit was issuing separate public and private land tags. That should allow public lands to avoid overharvests as well.

Have they sat down with the deer and explained to them where they can and can't go between joining private and public lands so that their permit models work?

That is the kind of backazz thinking that gets the herd into the situations it is in already. And considering he views public land as the last bastion of communism, how objective is he going to be?

[smsmith]

Have they sat down with the deer and explained to them where they can and can't go between joining private and public lands so that their permit models work?

That is the kind of backazz thinking that gets the herd into the situations it is in already. And considering he views public land as the last bastion of communism, how objective is he going to be?

Kroll is not adminstering/running the program in WI. He and his team made recommendations, then it was up to the DNR to implement them or not. Pick apart his words all you want, doesn't matter a bit to me. WI is trying to manage deer in the 21st Century, MN is not.

[Jameson]

...I get pretty tired of hearing "that's not how things have always been done here." Who cares? Just because we did things the same way in the 70's, 80's, 90's as now doesn't mean that's the right way to do them

so agree!

The only constant is change.

[PurpleFloyd]

Kroll is not adminstering/running the program in WI. He and his team made recommendations, then it was up to the DNR to implement them or not. Pick apart his words all you want, doesn't matter a bit to me. WI is trying to manage deer in the 21st Century, MN is not.

If the 21st century means we have no public hunting and everything is private, high fence ranch type where you pay to hunt I will take the 0th century any day.

[laker1]

The point is review of deer management and to bring somebody like Kroll in is two different things.

Minnesota is very fortunate to have a large public land and since day 1 of this country deer have belonged to all the people.

I do think it is healthy to talk about deer management,deer modeling but who decides who does the audit. Gov. Walker had a agenda on mine when he picked Kroll. Probably more polotical and sound game management.

I do agree the population modeling does have change,at least the north half the state. I am pretty familiar with the formula used,it is a start,but has some significant flaws in it at present.

[smsmith]

If the 21st century means we have no public hunting and everything is private, high fence ranch type where you pay to hunt I will take the 0th century any day.

It most certainly does not mean that. In case you've missed it, I've been strongly advocating for public land deer hunters in this state...and so does the MDDI.

It would have been/is much easier to focus on private landowners and helping them to improve their own properties for hunting. The problem with that is it leaves the average Joe out.

[smsmith]

The point is review of deer management and to bring somebody like Kroll in is two different things.

I have yet to see anybody state that bringing Kroll in to conduct a review/audit is even an option. I agree that Walker doing so was highly political. That said, at least deer hunting in WI is valued enough to make it highly political. When was the last time you heard a MN politician talking about how important deer and deer hunting were to MN? Walker used deer hunting and deer hunters to his advantage...and it was at least part of helping him get elected. It would be refreshing to see somebody in this state in a position of power acknowledge the economic and social importance of a well managed deer herd.

[laker1]

There is to be all these small sportsmen clubs etc. that were fairly active about a decade or more back. They kept in contact with the DNR in their area and their politicians.

All them clubs are usually gone now and that contact is lost with local politicians and the average citizen does not get involved in working with the system.

Also go to a DNR meeting,usually a few guys over age 60 show up and that is it.

The MN DNR has a fisheries round table that meets every so often with DNR and a citizen advisory committee,that would be a good way for wildlife to go.

[smsmith]

Lack of participation on the public's part is definitely frustrating.

[SmellEsox]

If the 21st century means we have no public hunting and everything is private, high fence ranch type where you pay to hunt I will take the 0th century any day.

Amen!

[SmellEsox]

It most certainly does not mean that. In case you've missed it, I've been strongly advocating for public land deer hunters in this state...and so does the MDDI.

It would have been/is much easier to focus on private landowners and helping them to improve their own properties for hunting. The problem with that is it leaves the average Joe out.

Michigan did this back in the 80's. I don't know if they still do. But they gave antlerless permits to private property owners that couldn't be used on public land. When you applied for the permit, you had to put the landowner's property number on the application. That is an example of how you could manage private land differently. Anyone could apply for the permit as long as the landowner's property number was on the application. I think it would be rare that public land would need to be IH. In fact, I would support public land being lottery only.

[smsmith]

In fact, I would support public land being lottery only.

So would I...

[mntatonka]

Michigan did this back in the 80's. I don't know if they still do. But they gave antlerless permits to private property owners that couldn't be used on public land. When you applied for the permit, you had to put the landowner's property number on the application. That is an example of how you could manage private land differently. Anyone could apply for the permit as long as the landowner's property number was on the application. I think it would be rare that public land would need to be IH. In fact, I would support public land being lottery only.

I would support public land being managed as a separate unit than private land. However, it shouldn't always be lottery, it could be bucks only, hunter's choice or even managed in some areas depending on the local populations.

[laker1]

Private land and public land is a checkered board ownership across the state and deer belong to everybody and deer don't know how to tell ownership lines while traveling.

We have a system now as far as hunting deer of equal opportunity working since the first deer season ever held in Minnesota working just great-don't mess with it.

Mess with it and you will end up like Texas is or like South Dakota was for a while with big corporations buying up all the best waterfowl hunting for nonresidents,shutting out the residents. That is why nonresidents for a while got shut of South Dakota for waterfowl hunting.

Yes in Texas now you have to pay to hunt on much of Texas public land.

We got a great hunting legacy,yes we can tweak as time goes on.

[Farmsfulltime]

So what has been discussed , it would go like this say I own a large block of mixed forest ag land deer love it here and come to the property for excellent food and cover that landowner gets different hunting rights than the public. wont fly here in Minnesota . Farmer owns large block of land deer feed heavily there , mddi , qdm, ect owns next door has allways enjoyed the extra deer in the area because of the farming activities . Now you are saying the laws would be different for one landowner and not the other . Talk about equality this wont happen in Minnesota . You cant manage them differently the conflict would be terrible

[smsmith]

Now you are saying the laws would be different for one landowner and not the other . Talk about equality this wont happen in Minnesota . You cant manage them differently the conflict would be terrible

Same things were said in WI. Once people actually took the time to understand the system, it is largely being met with open minds and a sense of a hope.

If something isn't done to improve public land hunting, we're gonna start to lose hunters at some point. Now, I'm sure there's a fair number of guys who'd say "good", but losing hunters (private or public) isn't good for the rest of us who'd like to maintain the ability to hunt for our kids and grandkids (and their grandkids).

Sure seems to me like tradition stands in the way of change in this state.

[smsmith]

Now you are saying the laws would be different for one landowner and not the other .

Only if those landowners decided the harvest regulations would be different. The laws remain the same, what changes from property to property (possibly) are harvests.

This already takes place when you think about it. I don't shoot does, I don't allow anybody who hunts here to shoot does. Neither myself or my buddy who gun hunts here will take a buck unless its going on the wall. I do allow my stepdaughter and her boyfriend to take any buck they want with a bow. One of my neighbors will take a limited number of does and only shoot bucks with 8 pts or more. We each have a different harvest strategy. All the DMAP plan does is help out those folks who don't have the time or ability to put a harvest strategy into place on their own.

[SmellEsox]

So what has been discussed , it would go like this say I own a large block of mixed forest ag land deer love it here and come to the property for excellent food and cover that landowner gets different hunting rights than the public. wont fly here in Minnesota . Farmer owns large block of land deer feed heavily there , mddi , qdm, ect owns next door has allways enjoyed the extra deer in the area because of the farming activities . Now you are saying the laws would be different for one landowner and not the other . Talk about equality this wont happen in Minnesota . You cant manage them differently the conflict would be terrible

We are talking a difference in management between private and public. What you described is a difference between one type of private vs. another type of private. Not sure how you are going to remedy your problem but you could manage your own land for maximum harvest if it needed that. Nothing you can do about the guy next door and how he manages his land. Can't really help that under current regs if they don't want to shoot deer. It's their right to do what they want on their land (manage for deer), just as it is your right to do what you want on your land (manage against deer).