Audit Push: Time To Act!

[Farmsfulltime]

oh im well aware of private land rights, what happens when private lands abuts public lands , Two separate set of standards wont happen in Minnesota , Part of the discussion about deer densities is about management choices on qdma mddi lands and owners of those lands, What qdma,mddi, mn bowhunters assoc. wants to do thru deer densities is control thru regulation the harvest on ALL lands to fit their ideas of proper deer densities. In other words change the rules of the game so we can get our way of what our perception of deer should be.

[Farmsfulltime]

there its been said don't tear it apart to bad as you know its true

[ANYFISH2]

Stu, do you really want the dnr/government to micro manage across the state? Sounds like a bad idea to me.

I hunt (rifle primarily) public land. Yes it can be crowded, but the hunting is consistant. One just needs to have there expectation realistic. It isn't as bad as some seem to make it out to be. We have had slow years and fantastic years, but overall the experiences have been good.

[smsmith]

oh im well aware of private land rights, what happens when private lands abuts public lands , Two separate set of standards wont happen in Minnesota , Part of the discussion about deer densities is about management choices on qdma mddi lands and owners of those lands, What qdma,mddi, mn bowhunters assoc. wants to do thru deer densities is control thru regulation the harvest on ALL lands to fit their ideas of proper deer densities. In other words change the rules of the game so we can get our way of what our perception of deer should be.

Change the rules of the game so we can get our way of what our perception of deer should be....????

OK.

All anybody wants that I'm aware of is a well managed deer herd using as many available tools/data procurement strategies as is possible.

If a person thinks 20-25 dpsm pre-fawn is some kind of unrealistic expectation, then they wouldn't agree with what MDDI and others are trying to accomplish.

We already have a set of deer regulations that controls what every hunter in this state can and cannot legally do.

When a group of citizens find questionably run government programs, I think its that groups' responsibility to point them out and ask for improvement.

[Farmsfulltime]

Anyfish exactly its deer hunting its different every year and should not be made to easy (high numbers) as that takes away the accomplishment and degrades the value of the animals also . In other words anybody can shoot one they are every where ect

[smsmith]

Stu, do you really want the dnr/government to micro manage across the state? Sounds like a bad idea to me.

I hunt (rifle primarily) public land. Yes it can be crowded, but the hunting is consistant. One just needs to have there expectation realistic. It isn't as bad as some seem to make it out to be. We have had slow years and fantastic years, but overall the experiences have been good.

NO...DMAP isn't even something on the radar here, I doubt it ever will be. I doubt I would sign up for the program if I were a WI landowner. However, for a guy who continually complains that he has too many deer...DMAP would offer a viable solution.

All I'm pointing out is that there are tools/strategies/ideas out there that other states are using to improve management. Both in areas where there are too many deer and in areas with too few.

[Farmsfulltime]

Can and cannot do is right and some proposals here sound a lot like separate but equal , As ive said try the audit take all stakeholder opinions the outcome will be very similar to what we have right now

[smsmith]

Can and cannot do is right and some proposals here sound a lot like separate but equal , As ive said try the audit take all stakeholder opinions the outcome will be very similar to what we have right now

You can't seem to get off the DMAP idea. I brought that up as a solution for a fellow like yourself who always has too many deer.

The audit will hopefully go through. It will likely involve nobody but the OLA folks. It will likely point out many good things our DNR does, and will also likely point out areas of improvement. I'm hopeful that the auditors look at discrepancies between area managers, as well as how frequently and to what extent harvest registration numbers are adjusted by various area managers. I'm also hopeful such an audit results in more deer license revenue actually going to manage deer rather than to everywhere else it gets spent. If the audit says our DNR is doing a bang up job and they can't make any improvements...so be it.

[Farmsfulltime]

There will be change at the DNR some more positions created more studies and certainly more paper and computer time , probably some more density studies ect. winters will help increase the statewide herd . some wont be happy no matter what happens , but we will have a paper trail . I will bet that population statewide does not change 10 years from now more than 15 percent averaged out year to year . there will be highs and lows ect

[smsmith]

There will be change at the DNR some more positions created more studies and certainly more paper and computer time , probably some more density studies ect. winters will help increase the statewide herd . some wont be happy no matter what happens , but we will have a paper trail . I will bet that population statewide does not change 10 years from now more than 15 percent averaged out year to year . there will be highs and lows ect

We have absolutely no way to know how many deer there were 10 years ago, today, or 10 years from now.

Either we start using some of the legitimate tools out there to count deer (aerial surveys, FLIR surveys, longitudinal trailcam studies, longitudinal hunter observations) or just say to heck with counting deer at all.

For our DNR to have said "there's about a million deer" in 2003, and every year since is pretty much B.S. Unless "about a million" means anywhere between 650,000 and 1.25 million anyway

For the record...a 15% increase in the deer harvest (using the DNR's numbers) would be pretty significant. For example, it would have put MN right in the range of where many folks think the total harvest should be annually last year...right around 200K.

[Jameson]

I hope an audit can figure out why the doe lottery results aren't available on the DNR's site yet.

AUDIT!!!

[mntatonka]

I hope an audit can figure out why the doe lottery results aren't available on the DNR's site yet.

AUDIT!!!

from the DNR's page: Application available with deer license purchase in early August.

Deadline for lottery first Thursday after Labor Day. Lottery results are available in mid October.

Stupid, considering it's an entirely electronic system, but I'm sure they have plenty of "manual work" to adjust the applicants, just like they say they do in their harvest data

[smsmith]

Speaking of gathering data...look what just showed up in my email inbox http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/WildlifeHabitat/wlsurvey.html

Nice to see a DNR seeking hunter input. WI DNR has done similar surveys for quite a few years.

The WI DNR is also launching a new statewide trailcam survey http://www.bowhunting.com/blog/2014/8/8/wisconsin-dnr-launches-statewide-trail-camera-survey/

These kinds of things are easily done (even though last year our DNR told the MDDI doing a statewide trailcam survey wasn't feasible) when you have folks running the show who really want answers.

[laker1]

DNR seeks citizens to serve on spending oversight committees

Minnesotans who would like to serve on committees that review how the Department of Natural Resources spends Game and Fish Fund dollars are welcome to submit an application by Sept. 30.

The DNR is seeking at least 12 people to serve on the Fisheries Oversight and Wildlife Oversight committees. Appointees will be responsible for reviewing the agency’s annual Game and Fish Fund Report in detail and, following discussions with agency leaders and others, write a report on the findings of this review. About half of the current members’ terms expire on December 14 and are subject to this open application.

[PurpleFloyd]

I will say that 20-25 DPSM is unrealistic in the great majority of the state. Actually that number would be insane in over 2/3 of the state.with densities if 25 DPSM we would have a population of 2175000 deer in the states 87000 square miles.I am pretty sure an audit is going to say that those types of numbers are way overboard.

Would someone please explain what a longitudinal Hunter observation is, how it works, and how accurate it would possibly be at determining deer populations?

[smsmith]

1.I will say that 20-25 DPSM is unrealistic in the great majority of the state. Actually 2. that number would be insane in over 2/3 of the state.with densities if 25 DPSM 3. we would have a population of 2175000 deer in the states 87000 square miles.I am pretty sure an audit is going to say that those types of numbers are way overboard.

4. Would someone please explain what a longitudinal Hunter observation is, how it works, and how accurate it would possibly be at determining deer populations?

1. I agree, I should have specified those dpsms in the transition zone

2. 2/3 of the state? I don't think so, but would likely agree to around 1/2

3. you took 25 times the total number of square miles in MN. MN uses deer habitat acreage to determine densities. Cities, lakes, wetlands, rural residences/farmsteads, and farm fields are not considered into the equation when determining densities.

4. simple, following hunter observations in the same area over a period of time. I already do this on my place. I use visual sightings as well as trailcam pics to determine how many deer use my place. I'll do the same for as long as I live on this chunk. By doing that I'll have a reasonably effective way to determine whether numbers are up, down, or steady. You can also determine buck/doe ratios by doing this. How is it accurate in determining deer populations? It would be effective in doing so over a period of time once a baseline is established. IA uses bowhunter surveys each year as part of their herd monitoring program.

MDHA is piloting such a hunter survey this year in an attempt to gather some of this baseline data. My understanding is that the survey will be for MDHA members only this year, but they have hopes of expanding it to non-members in the future.

Hunter observations are only one tool to use to determine population trends. Combine them with aerial surveys (where applicable, don't work in the northern part of the state due to dense forests) every 4-5 years, roadside surveys, FLIR surveys, trailcam surveys, etc. and you can actually start getting a handle on just how many deer there actually are.

[PurpleFloyd]

1. I agree, I should have specified those dpsms in the transition zone

2. 2/3 of the state? I don't think so, but would likely agree to around 1/2

[smsmith]

Not even close to 1/2 IMHO. I made a short drive up hwy 15 from I90 to north of Alexandria this weekend and in that whole drive there was only very limited areas that would sustain that type of population densities.

Yeah, but seat of the pants opinions are less reliable than anything the DNR uses because they are always biased and certainly subjective. I could put 50 hunters and 50 cams on a single parcel and get 100 different numbers for deer density. And averaging subjection is certainly not reliable.

Sounds incredibly expensive to me. Do you have any accurate cost estimates for doing accurate arial surveys of the entire state on a 5 year basis? Maybe I am wrong but this seems to be a huge undertaking.

You drove north of Alex and saw limited areas that could handle 25 dpsm? Okay

Seat of the pants? So you're saying you believe the DNR is more able to be unbiased than the deer hunting public. No, you're wrong...you can't put 50 hunters and 50 cams on a single parcel get 100 different numbers. There are procedures and training involved with doing surveys like that. They are every bit as "scientific" as our current method of throwing a dart at a board and saying "about a million a deer in the state"...actually...they are far more likely to result in an accurate number than our current methodology. http://www.qdma.com/articles/how-to-run-a-trail-camera-survey

My understanding is the each unit flown for an aerial survey last year was around $13K. The entire state cannot be flown (as I pointed out previously) due to limitations from woody cover. Fly 20 units a year at $13k = $260,000. That amount is just over 1% annually of what deer license revenue brings in.

[hockeybc69]

Wasnt it Marrett Grund that said for the models to work properly, aerial surveys should be conducted every 4 to 5 years so that it can be calibrated?

Currently we are at a run rate of doing aerial surveys every 10+ years per permit area??

[smsmith]

Wasnt it Marrett Grund that said for the models to work properly, aerial surveys should be conducted every 4 to 5 years so that it can be calibrated?

Currently we are at a run rate of doing aerial surveys every 10+ years per permit area??

Yes, it was Grund who stated that.

I attempted to find out the last time 215 was flown and came up empty. From what I'm able to tell...it has never been flown. If somebody is able to get data saying otherwise, I'm sure open to admitting I'm wrong and would love to see that data.

I believe at the current rate, it would take the DNR well over 20 years to fly the units that use aerial surveys for model re-calibration.

edit for PF...if you got NE of Alex not very far you'd have been into a zone managed for about 30 dpsm...and its at goal

[PurpleFloyd]

You drove north of Alex and saw limited areas that could handle 25 dpsm? Okay

[Farmsfulltime]

Maybe we could just add 30 percent more to DNR staff make them all deer experts they could generate data for all concerned that would keep the deer geeks happy . The rest of the hunters could hunt deer like always and live happily ever after.

[Jameson]

Just add one staff member that actually cared about deer and the deer hunters and we would have vast improvement. Our current Deer Sheriff hadn't even hunted deer before taking the job in MN. Too bad we don't have more Elk to manage in the state as I have no doubt they would be well managed for.

[smsmith]

P.F....clearly you give me too much credit I get tired of the never ending naysayers and from time to time that results in some smartarse responses.

The Alex area is some fantastic habitat...to think that area can't support 25 dpsm almost universally is kind of laughable to me. Continue north to Parkers Prairie, New York Mills, Perham, etc. and the habitat remains fantastic. Head east from Alex (north of 94) and its the same all the way to the WI border.

So...since none of the ideas I've offered for improving accuracy in counting deer make logical or financial sense in YHO...what do we do? The tools I've suggested would improve accuracy, but would obviously have limitations. Perhaps we should just quit counting the deer at all? If we're worried about money (not sure why when everything I've proposed is a tiny fraction of annual deer license revenue), maybe we re-locate the 2 (yes...2) DNR staff who spend more than 50% of their time on managing deer.

Let's just maintain the status quo...that's what I'm hearing from you P.F. I'm not the type of guy who sees a need for change/improvement and doesn't seek to accomplish those improvements.

I suppose my best solution at this point is to do what more and more folks are doing every year....deer hunt out of state and stop contributing license revenue to what I perceive as being either an incompetent or agenda driven MN DNR.

[Farmsfulltime]

The DNR does have an agenda always have and always will , The question is which agenda . Its called management and there is certainly different management wants. Some of the reason a lot of people don't join in the call for DNR change is because the job they are doing is good enough considering what they have to work with , weather, crop feeding, inexact science of deer distribution ect. PF is right in 50 percent farm lands , 50 percent cover with 25 dpsm at some point in the year you would have 50 dpsm on half the land wont work at that high of an average.

[smsmith]

Some of the reason a lot of people don't join in the call for DNR change is because the job they are doing is good enough considering what they have to work with

I'm not real happy with "good enough" (the saying "good enough for government work" comes to mind).

When the total kill this year is half or less than it was a decade ago, that's good enough? Okay...

I suppose the issue here is that many deer hunters aren't happy with good enough and would like MN to go back to the deer hunting Mecca it once was.

Ya...I know...winter, wind, rain and standing corn

[smsmith]

One more way to make your opinion known...The Office of the Legislative Auditor is the recipient, 1000 signatures is the goal but many more would be even better.

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

If you support the audit...sign the online petition. However, don't only rely on this method. Doing the following is also very important

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/

[mntatonka]

This'll show 'em! Online petitions hold so much weight, they can't possibly ignore it!

[smsmith]

This'll show 'em! Online petitions hold so much weight, they can't possibly ignore it!

Sarcasm duly noted. The musky guys used online petitions to their advantage quite well however.

As I stated...this isn't the only thing to do..just one of them

[flipper]

I wish someone would start a petition for no audit. Just another waste of taxpayer money to please a special interest group.