Audit Push: Time To Act!

[Getanet]

To make sure state agencies are doing the best possible job managing a resource.

As you say, Zone 346 is the most heavily monitored zone in the state. Gets far too much attention IMHO. And yet the DNR apparently can't get it right and the some hunters there aren't happy.

So, with 90% of the attention on one tiny little pocket of the state, and still not getting the results people want, sounds like a bit of a hopeless cause for the vast majority of the state.

I'm not against the audit, but I'm not signing the petition either. This doesn't seem to be rocket science. Limit the doe tags for a year or two and the population can quickly turn around.

[PurpleFloyd]

That scenario is what audits exist for?

Pray tell what an audit will do to increase the satisfaction of a guy sitting in a stand on 20 acres when the guy bordering him has 1000 acres that is posted and holding the deer?

[hockeybc69]

Does said landowner with 1000 acres have a high fence or not?

[delcecchi]

Does said landowner with 1000 acres have a high fence or not?

You don't think deer can tell when people suddenly appear on a piece of property and are walking around and doing other stuff? Weird stuff in one area, same-old same-old in another. Where will deer be most comfortable?

[btheturkey]

Pray tell what an audit will do to increase the satisfaction of a guy sitting in a stand on 20 acres when the guy bordering him has 1000 acres that is posted and holding the deer?

If the model and herd monitoring techniques are better able to address problem hot spots at the source, we can do away will the 5 antlerless tags that blanket entire zones, lessening the cold pockets created by groups killing every deer they see in areas that do not have too many deer.

Selling 5 doe tags per guy in zones that are south of 50% hunter satisfaction for deer seen on stand is not a great solution.

Our DNR wants to manage for fewer deer than we did 10 years ago, but they want to to it with the same tools and techniques, and it is not working. Hunter satisfaction is on its way down, and if we think selling 5 antler less tags per hunter is going to do anything but continue the decline we are mistaken.

[mntatonka]

If the model and herd monitoring techniques are better able to address problem hot spots at the source, we can do away will the 5 antlerless tags that blanket entire zones, lessening the cold pockets created by groups killing every deer they see in areas that do not have too many deer.

Selling 5 doe tags per guy in zones that are south of 50% hunter satisfaction for deer seen on stand is not a great solution.

Our DNR wants to manage for fewer deer than we did 10 years ago, but they want to to it with the same tools and techniques, and it is not working. Hunter satisfaction is on its way down, and if we think selling 5 antler less tags per hunter is going to do anything but continue the decline we are mistaken.

and yet those areas with 5 tags this year are areas that have a history of a population problem, and are proven to still have that problem. These are areas that NEED a decline, and can definitely handle it.

[hockeybc69]

Quote:

You don't think deer can tell when people suddenly appear on a piece of property and are walking around and doing other stuff? Weird stuff in one area, same-old same-old in another. Where will deer be most comfortable?

I am very happy to take my odds living on 20 acres next to a 1000 acre "sanctuary".. Are you frickin kidding? Thats a no brainer.

Sure beats the alternative, where everyone is on small tracts and brings in a herd of people with rifles every year and mows down everything that moves because the DNR allows them to mow em down for years on end.

[btheturkey]

and yet those areas with 5 tags this year are areas that have a history of a population problem, and are proven to still have that problem. These are areas that NEED a decline, and can definitely handle it.

The areas that hold the absurd numbers that cause problems need a decline. True. But those areas are a very small fraction of the entire zone.

I don't know the percentage, but I would guess 85% and likely more of the zone has far fewer than 15 dpsm of habitat. Yet those 'below goal' areas are allowed 5 antler less tags per hunter. And every year hunter satisfaction lessens.

[SmellEsox]

and yet those areas with 5 tags this year are areas that have a history of a population problem, and are proven to still have that problem. These are areas that NEED a decline, and can definitely handle it.

So the management is failing. They need to do something different. They could give 20 tags per hunter and you'd still have the same issue if these large property owners aren't killing enough deer. You have got to hit the hot areas in a different way. You can't just keep hammering the dump out of the rest of the permit area when it isn't helping farmers with problems.

[creepworm]

I am very happy to take my odds living on 20 acres next to a 1000 acre "sanctuary".. Are you frickin kidding? Thats a no brainer.

Sure beats the alternative, where everyone is on small tracts and brings in a herd of people with rifles every year and mows down everything that moves because the DNR allows them to mow em down for years on end.

Or people are mowing down does because for years they were told to shoot does if they want big bucks.

[btheturkey]

Or people are mowing down does because for years they were told to shoot does if they want big bucks.

I agree that the 'shoot does for the sake of the herd' message has created a huge mess in much of MN. Places people could not figure out when to stop shooting the does have low population problems right now.

It works in states like MS where they have no winter, fawns breed and drop next year and triplets are common. MN - not so much.

Average hunter in MS kills 2.2 deer per year. Average hunter in MN kills about .3. Our DNR sells more tags than there are adult deer.

Its a whole different world as you travel north to south.

[mntatonka]

The areas that hold the absurd numbers that cause problems need a decline. True. But those areas are a very small fraction of the entire zone.

I don't know the percentage, but I would guess 85% and likely more of the zone has far fewer than 15 dpsm of habitat. Yet those 'below goal' areas are allowed 5 antler less tags per hunter. And every year hunter satisfaction lessens.

[Getanet]

Just found a very interesting thread entitled "MN APR Expansion." Seems to support my original skepticism of what the MDDI is truly about and what the ultimate goal is. It would be educational to read the whole thing through and come to your own conclusions before signing any petition. Takes a bit to decipher who the players are, but Bat Man = Brooks Johnson. Ssmith = the same one here. Give this whole thread read if you're interested, but here are a few quotes:

11/19/2013. Brooks(AKA Bat Man)"Keep writing letters and emails to MN Outdoor News and the legislature to build awareness and public support. Very important. Better deer numbers come first, followed by yearling buck protection."

11/19/2013. Ssmith "Awesome...feed me the "party line" and I'll duplicate it "

http://www.qdma.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-58992.html

[mntatonka]

I agree that the 'shoot does for the sake of the herd' message has created a huge mess in much of MN. Places people could not figure out when to stop shooting the does have low population problems right now.

It works in states like MS where they have no winter, fawns breed and drop next year and triplets are common. MN - not so much.

Average hunter in MS kills 2.2 deer per year. Average hunter in MN kills about .3. Our DNR sells more tags than there are adult deer.

Its a whole different world as you travel north to south.

not bad considering the average doe has 1.3-1.6 fawns per year. Stop shooting the does (like the majority of the state is doing this year), and your population will rebound quite quickly.

[btheturkey]

Just found a very interesting thread entitled "MN APR Expansion." Seems to support my original skepticism of what the MDDI is truly about and what the ultimate goal is. It would be educational to read the whole thing through and come to your own conclusions before signing any petition. Takes a bit to decipher who the players are, but Bat Man = Brooks Johnson. Ssmith = the same one here. Give this whole thread read if you're interested, but here are a few quotes:

11/19/2013. Brooks(AKA Bat Man)"Keep writing letters and emails to MN Outdoor News and the legislature to build awareness and public support. Very important. Better deer numbers come first, followed by yearling buck protection."

11/19/2013. Ssmith "Awesome...feed me the "party line" and I'll duplicate it "

http://www.qdma.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-58992.html

100% accurate. Since then the tune has changed.

The quote you reference was pre MDDI. MDDI was formed in December of 2013, and never has a mention of any form of buck protection come into play.

APR's are no longer on our table. We stopped the talk as it is used a herd reduction tool and we don't need herd reduction across 98% of MN. We wanted an initiative most would back, and the excessive reduction of the deer herd was it.

My conclusion is APR's were likely placed in SE MN to put additional pressure on the does. And they have accomplished just that. Biologically APRs shift harvest to the doe herd, and when you kill enough does, the herd shrinks.The herd reduction accelerated with the 4 on a side rule.

[Farmsfulltime]

Sounds like the agenda is clear ,, but hidden for now in other words sell them on population smoke screen and then push aprs , I knew there was more to the story change the publics perception of deer and deer hunting to accomplish OUR goals

[BRULEDRIFTER]

How about looking at it like this....

(Just to start with, I have always been and always will be against Mandatory APR regulations).

By supporting the Audit, you are, at this point, simply supporting a method of checks and balances with how our DNR agency, that we pay for, is conducting assessments of the state deer herd and making sure these methods are still valid and that the best science available is used.

Deer populations are in the tank in a vast majority of the state right now and there is plenty of blame to go around. Let's essentially start over with a clean slate while we rebuild and (to quote the Vikings)let's get this right!

If/when populations rebound and population modeling is shown to be sound, then we can get back to bickering on whether or not to institute mandatory APR regs. Given how cyclical the deer herd is, it's really not ever likely to become much of a threat, aside from pockets throughout the state. And if by chance APRs are instated, well that would be a bummer for us that don't want them, but on the other hand, at least that means there is a robust enough deer population that we may actually be able to go hunting and possibly see a deer or 2 every few sits to keep us and our future generations interested in participating.

Up here in the northland, it's a grim year again this year. As much as I love being out on stand, I really have to question if going out to stare at squirrels and chick-a-dees for hours on end is the best way to spend my fall. It's a very good possiblity I will not even see a deer on stand this season. I spend a lot of time in the woods and on the road, and seeing a deer or deer sign at all has become a very uncommon sight. Yes, the last 2 winters and wolves have taken their toll, but the blatant disregard to the improper management by the state over the years along with that is something that needs to be addressed.

I cannot for the life of me see where people can keep blindly defending the DNR these days. I know I used to be like that. But over the last handful of years there just seems to be more and more evidence that the suits in St. Paul and some of the area supervisors clearly are out of touch and/or simply don't know what they are doing or don't care.

Sign the petition! Let's institute some change that can maybe get the ball rolling in the right direction again.

[96trigger]

Quote:

If/when populations rebound and population modeling is shown to be sound, then we can get back to bickering on whether or not to institute mandatory APR regs. Given how cyclical the deer herd is, it's really not ever likely to become much of a threat, aside from pockets throughout the state. And if by chance APRs are instated, well that would be a bummer for us that don't want them, but on the other hand, at least that means there is a robust enough deer population that we may actually be able to go hunting and possibly see a deer or 2 every few sits to keep us and our future generations interested in participating.

I agree with you 100% on this. The population in SEMN, in my area at least, is stable. We can see deer on most sits. Seldom do we not see anything and most of the time that is weather related. When taking the survey, the question was asked if we wanted to see more deer. Well of course we want to see more deer who wouldn't. It doesn't mean the population in SEMN is as bad as it is in the rest of the state. (Which I believe by the sounds of all of you, is pretty bad). All it means is that in many areas of the southeast, we would like to see the population increase. The DNR listened and the management and intensive harvest areas are vastly decreased. This should help the population rebound some, and continue to give hunters the opportunity to shoot deer. The southeast herd never got as decimated as other areas of the state due to over harvest. However, it is significantly lower than it was 10 years ago. My personal opinion is that too many years of intensive harvest is more to blame than APR, but I am not so ignorant or blind as to see that APR is a tool that will lower the deer population and has had an effect. In no way should APR even be discussed until the populations rebound. I believe you can go back in many of the APR discussions and see a general consensus on that among both groups.

[PurpleFloyd]

How will anyone know if an audit actually gets it right when the loudest group of hunters has proven that they are prone to change their definition of what is right at the drop of a hat.

Last year it was save small bucks and fill the freezer with does to have a balanced and healthy herd. This year it is don't shoot any does and I am not sure what they want you to do with the small bucks and next year one can only imagine what the trend du jour will be.

Maybe the DNR should hire one of those clairvoyant types so they can predict what a minority of hunters is going to be up in arms about next.

[PurpleFloyd]

Maybe we can reach a consensus on an I itiative like DBMT.

That means don't buy multiple tags.

If a group would do the posters and post on forums like they are for the MDDI, Then we could raise awareness of the idea that one Hunter group doesn't need 5 tags for each of themselves.

That coupled with the reduction in lottery permits would correct the problem without needing big brother to get involved. And hopefully we can all agree that less government involvement is a good thing.

[hockeybc69]

I like the idea PF.... How do you propose to get that type of message to the masses?

Then on top of that, get the buy in from them? All too many hunters have a "shoot to kill at all costs" mentality. I firmly believe that many people have no clue that deer are a finite resource....

[ANYFISH2]

That coupled with the reduction in lottery permits would correct the problem without needing big brother to get involved. And hopefully we can all agree that less government involvement is a good thing.

Purple, I think we all agree less government the better.

However, there is always going to DNR involvement, along with the fact that many hunters are not as intune with what is going on in the woods. They will take what the DNR says and does as what is really going on and they should be able to! That is why we ask for them to have the best data set and tools available. That way their word is completely credible. Thus more reason for the audit, It will help the DNR, hunters, and the deer herd.

[smsmith]

Maybe we can reach a consensus on an I itiative like DBMT.

That means don't buy multiple tags.

If a group would do the posters and post on forums like they are for the MDDI, Then we could raise awareness of the idea that one Hunter group doesn't need 5 tags for each of themselves.

That coupled with the reduction in lottery permits would correct the problem without needing big brother to get involved. And hopefully we can all agree that less government involvement is a good thing.

Lead the charge, see who follows.

[delcecchi]

....

Up here in the northland, it's a grim year again this year. As much as I love being out on stand, I really have to question if going out to stare at squirrels and chick-a-dees for hours on end is the best way to spend my fall. It's a very good possiblity I will not even see a deer on stand this season. I spend a lot of time in the woods and on the road, and seeing a deer or deer sign at all has become a very uncommon sight. Yes, the last 2 winters and wolves have taken their toll, but the blatant disregard to the improper management by the state over the years along with that is something that needs to be addressed.

...

Interesting. This summer at the cabin I saw a fair number of deer in the yard and while going for walks. I can't say that it was as many as last year (although it got so a guy had to watch where he walked on the lawn) it certainly was true that deer were around. This was near west end of lake vermilion

[Bureaucrat]

How will anyone know if an audit actually gets it right when the loudest group of hunters has proven that they are prone to change their definition of what is right at the drop of a hat.

Last year it was save small bucks and fill the freezer with does to have a balanced and healthy herd. This year it is don't shoot any does and I am not sure what they want you to do with the small bucks and next year one can only imagine what the trend du jour will be.

Maybe the DNR should hire one of those clairvoyant types so they can predict what a minority of hunters is going to be up in arms about next.

Were you at our secret meeting in the basement of the Alumni House at Winona State University? How did you get in? Nobody is allowed in unless they have this tatoo on their left butt cheek and know the password (which also changes every 60 seconds on a VPN token on their smartphone).

[Bureaucrat]

Sounds like the agenda is clear ,, but hidden for now in other words sell them on population smoke screen and then push aprs , I knew there was more to the story change the publics perception of deer and deer hunting to accomplish OUR goals

You caught us. Time to come clean. We're actually a rebranded sect of Moveon.org.

[PurpleFloyd]

How will anyone know if an audit actually gets it right when the loudest group of hunters has proven that they are prone to change their definition of what is right at the drop of a hat.

Last year it was save small bucks and fill the freezer with does to have a balanced and healthy herd. This year it is don't shoot any does and I am not sure what they want you to do with the small bucks and next year one can only imagine what the trend du jour will be.

Maybe the DNR should hire one of those clairvoyant types so they can predict what a minority of hunters is going to be up in arms about next.

[PurpleFloyd]

Maybe we can reach a consensus on an I itiative like DBMT.

That means don't buy multiple tags.

If a group would do the posters and post on forums like they are for the MDDI, Then we could raise awareness of the idea that one Hunter group doesn't need 5 tags for each of themselves.

That coupled with the reduction in lottery permits would correct the problem without needing big brother to get involved. And hopefully we can all agree that less government involvement is a good thing.

[PurpleFloyd]

Purple, I think we all agree less government the better.

[PurpleFloyd]

Then on top of that, get the buy in from them? All too many hunters have a "shoot to kill at all costs" mentality. I firmly believe that many people have no clue that deer are a finite resource....

Well, if that is the case, then an audit isn't going to be able to fix that and maybe it is the hunters, not the DNR that need to be audited.