Audit Push: Time To Act!

[DaveT]

The mddi should thank pf for keeping the discussion going this long , for more prospects to view and get your agenda out there . If this fell quiet and there was no discussion im sure the subject would get pretty stale. The way your petition drive is going I don't think the dnr will hear your cries very long either . This certainly is not mainstream for the average deer hunter sorry just a quik observation . When I call the dnr they return my calls but maybe I call different people than you . Good Luck you will need it

Thanks Purple!

[Jameson]

A quick thought without any researching....the areas of the state that are consistently lottery and zone 3 maybe haven't had their deer herds cut in half (or by 40%, whatever), but that only means that the other areas have had their herds cut more than half. The other areas being the areas of the state that have traditionally had the most deer and have had Intensive/Managed/Early Anterless regulations in recent years. Now they have the least deer, and still have a lot of hunters.

Could very well be wrong, but thought it was something to consider.

[Getanet]

I think that was what the DNR was attempting to say when they replied to Brooks with:

"It is not meaningful to say the “2005-2007 stakeholder process called for a 10% reduction of the MN deer herd” because we don’t manage deer on a statewide basis. We manage deer on a permit area basis so it is more appropriate to discuss population changes at the permit area level or in a group of permit areas. For example, the goal for permit areas 221, 222 and 225 is to reduce the population by 25% from fall 2005 levels. It can be misleading if you discuss areas like that in the context of a 10% statewide deer reduction."

In short, it's a little more complicated than a blanket statement that covers the whole state.

[B. Amish]

How soon we all forget that your hunts successes or failures are the barometer for the rest of the state.

lol... isn't that was this is all about...?

[btheturkey]

I think that was what the DNR was attempting to say when they replied to Brooks with:

For example, the goal for permit areas 221, 222 and 225 is to reduce the population by 25% from fall 2005 levels. It can be misleading if you discuss areas like that in the context of a 10% statewide deer reduction."

I am not discussing areas 221, 222 or 225 when I make the statement

'A scheduled 9% herd reduction has the statewide harvest down 41%'

The DNR does not like us using the stats because it flat out shows they have lowered the herd much further than they said the plan was.

It spells out in the simplest terms the issues our model and monitoring techniques are having

[Jameson]

I am not discussing areas 221, 222 or 225 when I make the statement

'A scheduled 9% herd reduction has the statewide harvest down 41%'

The DNR does not like us using the stats because it flat out shows they have lowered the herd much further than they said the plan was.

It spells out in the simplest terms the issues our model and monitoring techniques are having

Could the herd be down 90% in a 10 areas of the state, the herd be even in the other 90 or whatever areas, and the statewide herd be down 41% ??

If those 10 areas were typically the only areas of the state that normally carried more than 10 dpsm then maybe, huh?

Got an area by area breakdown of harvest reductions/gains? A map?

[creepworm]

The DNR does not like us using the stats because it flat out shows they have lowered the herd much further than they said the plan was.

Can you say unequivocally, with out a doubt, the DNR is the reason for the decrease? The weather did not have anything to do with it?

If you believe factors outside of the DNR's control had something to do with the lower harvest numbers, how do divide the blame?

Something like 90% weather, 5% DNR, and 5% habitat loss/degradation sounds very reasonable.

[btheturkey]

Can you say unequivocally, with out a doubt, the DNR is the reason for the decrease? The weather did not have anything to do with it?

If you believe factors outside of the DNR's control had something to do with the lower harvest numbers, how do divide the blame?

Something like 90% weather, 5% DNR, and 5% habitat loss/degradation sounds very reasonable.

Yes I believe I can. Hunters killing deer is the number 1 reason populations go up and down in MN.

The harvest was off 41% before last winter. For 2013 the DNR decided to put a few more zones into managed and intensive harvest to try and up the doe kill and further shrink the herd. Kill too many does and the herd shrinks.

Last winter was incredibly brutal no doubt, but to let the agency hide behind it will not be allowed if I have any say.

They won't even admit the herd is down to this day. Leslie still is being quoted as saying the deer are still there, and have not been reduced to the levels some suggest. Because the only tool she has to monitor the herd is buck harvest. Its not working.

Weather can and will affect deer numbers through mortality and recruitment, but if the model and herd monitoring techniques fail to interpret how weather affects the herd they are failing. Models are not perfect, but they can always be made better.

[DaveT]

lol... isn't that was this is all about...?

I'd say not really. Just a group of very passionate people trying to save a sport they care about in a state they care about. If what happened to the duck hunters happens to the deer hunters we won't need any of this. There will be deer everywhere.

This quote is taken from an article published in 2012.

http://www.americanhunter.org/articles/waterfowler-numbers-take-a-dive

"In 2009, the Minnesota DNR conducted a first-ever study of the “lapsed” waterfowl hunter to try to determine why these people left the sport. In 1971, waterfowl hunter numbers peaked in Minnesota at 161,000. The 1999-2000 season still saw 128,000 hunters afield. Last year? Just 88,000."

The fact of the matter is if hunters don't have success or opportunity, they will spend their money and time on something else. I am one of those guys who quit duck hunting, what's the point of spending all that money for a couple weekends of staring at empty skies? I'll just bowhunt. When I quit duck hunting there were a lot of deer around. Now, not so much. My interest has waned, I still go out here and there, but mainly I'm just waiting for November so I can head to Kansas. Seeing a yearling buck once every 3rd or 4th sit doesn't do much for me, especially when I can remember seeing yearling bucks every sit and a couple mature bucks every fall as recently as 7 years ago.

What I'm hearing from a few guys here is that I should disbelieve my own experiences and believe the DNR when they tell me year after frigging year that there are a million deer in this state. The average one week a year deer hunter isn't going to care how many deer the DNR tells him there are. If he continues to not see squat he will eventually trade in that gun for a pitching wedge or a fishing pole or a tv remote and he will be out of the sport. Who will kill all of these crop raiding vermin when we have 200,000 deer hunters instead of a half million?

The DNR has ignored the data and the warning signs in favor of ringing that cash register bell with doe tags. Now they're slamming on the brakes but they zoomed past 3 rumble strips and a stop sign first. This audit should help them manage for population swings instead of cause population swings. We are paying their wages with our license fees, as the consumer we have a right to demand a better product. If you owned a business, would you like to have your customers tell you that they need a better widget, or would you prefer they just quit buying your widgets all together?

[Getanet]

I am not discussing areas 221, 222 or 225 when I make the statement

'A scheduled 9% herd reduction has the statewide harvest down 41%'

The DNR does not like us using the stats because it flat out shows they have lowered the herd much further than they said the plan was.

It spells out in the simplest terms the issues our model and monitoring techniques are having

There is quite a difference between saying the harvest is down 41% and the herd is down 50%.

Here is what your petition states: A planned 9% reduction has cut the MN deer herd 50% in less than 10 years, and our DNR refuses to acknowledge it has happened.

I’m curious how you arrive at such a concrete stat? Particularly if you claim the DNR has no idea what the herd levels ever are or were.

[PurpleFloyd]

There is quite a difference between saying the harvest is down 41% and the herd is down 50%.

Here is what your petition states: A planned 9% reduction has cut the MN deer herd 50% in less than 10 years, and our DNR refuses to acknowledge it has happened.

Amazing how all of the 50% herd reduction stuff magically disappeared.

[PurpleFloyd]

I'll just bowhunt. When I quit duck hunting there were a lot of deer around. Now, not so much. My interest has waned, I still go out here and there, but mainly I'm just waiting for November so I can head to Kansas.

[creepworm]

I’m curious how you arrive at such a concrete stat? Particularly if you claim the DNR has no idea what the herd levels ever are or were.

I asked the same question earlier and never got an answer.

What I do find funny, is they say the herd is down 50% in one breath, and in the next say the DNR has no idea what the deer populations are. To prove the DNR has no idea what the deer numbers are, they cite a flyover where the numbers were 56% ABOVE what the DNR thought.

Laughable

[btheturkey]

I asked the same question earlier and never got an answer.

What I do find funny, is they say the herd is down 50% in one breath, and in the next say the DNR has no idea what the deer populations are. To prove the DNR has no idea what the deer numbers are, they cite a flyover where the numbers were 56% ABOVE what the DNR thought.

Laughable

Deer vehicle collisions had the herd off 51% before last winter. Thats hard data. Some states use this gauge as their primary herd monitoring tool.

And your 56% above figure points out how badly the model fails. Get 56% wrong on a test, (aerial counts are a test of the model) and what grade would you get. That would be an F.

[hockeybc69]

Quote:

To prove the DNR has no idea what the deer numbers are, they cite a flyover where the numbers were 56% ABOVE what the DNR thought.

That statement is beyond laughable.

Read what you said, and think about it just a little.

[creepworm]

That statement is beyond laughable.

Read what you said, and think about it just a little.

I thought about it before I posted it. If you read my entire comment instead of cherry picking a couple of sentences you know my point.

That point is, the MDDI decided to grab a number out of thin air in hopes of garnering support for their movement. There is no basis or fact involved in that number, it must have just sounded good. Furthermore, they refuse to explain how they came up with that number, which just provides further proof that the number is baseless. There is only one zone flown to compare to the DNR's population estimates, and that zone was 56% above what the DNR thought. That completely flies in the face of the 50% herd reduction the MDDI is trying to scare hunters with.

I know there have been other zones flown that have shown a herd reduction. But, according to one of the leaders of the MDDI (smsith)said, anything 10 months old or older is "ancient history" and has no bearing on the current situation.

[btheturkey]

That point is, the MDDI decided to grab a number out of thin air in hopes of garnering support for their movement. There is no basis or fact involved in that number, it must have just sounded good. Furthermore, they refuse to explain how they came up with that number, which just provides further proof that the number is baseless. There is only one zone flown to compare to the DNR's population estimates, and that zone was 56% above what the DNR thought. That completely flies in the face of the 50% herd reduction the MDDI is trying to scare hunters with.

To the contrary. Most of the info on model failure deals with excessive herd reductions. The 346 example shows the model failing the other way.

I have attached a link for you to read, to see how the model regularly misses the mark by as much as 300%, with the science based double checks (aerials at $15,000 a pop) ignored by the DNR. Models do not work like that. The more science based double checks you have the better the model functions.

Enjoy the link- Brooks' Blog on the audit request. http://mnbowhunters.org/2014/08/14/is-your-elected-going-to-bat-for-the-states-deer-hunters/

[smsmith]

But, according to one of the leaders of the MDDI (smsith)said, anything 10 months old or older is "ancient history" and has no bearing on the current situation.

"leaders of the MDDI"? You flatterer you

[willyfahey]

If the MDDI want the audit, then why don't they pay for it? How can you have an independent audit when the one being audited is the one paying? The proposal is to fund the audit with license sales. With decreased tag revenue that means this added cost will have more of an impact on the budget.

I have yet to hear how an audit actually changes the way the DNR manages. Sure an audit may outline flaws, imperfections and irregularities but that doesn't guarantee change in management. The DNR (and all other gov't agencies) manages within a framework of statutes. As far as I can tell they have done that. I have yet to find a statute outlining herd density requirements.

Hunting has become a sport and sport=business. If you don't like the store, then don't shop there. I'd like to see more of you going to Kansas.

I see hunting a little different than most. A hunter is one than that pursues wild game given whatever the conditions provide. The people supporting this audit are one's that want the DNR to make them successful hunters. I liken you more to farmers than hunters. You want to manage and harvest, not hunt. The DNR is not mandated to manage deer as a farming operation: high yield per acre, quality guarantees, etc. Although, if you own land, I would strongly urge you to focus your own farming philosophy there. You can put on the camo and call yourself what you want but at the very least lets be honest about what this audit and the associated groups represent: the Walmart of hunting. They promote harvest and not hunting. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with that other than you trying to impose your philosophy upon the rest of us. This state has a heritage of hunting and frankly, I find it appalling that you seek out to destroy it.

[willyfahey]

I don't get it. Someone has property, provides perfect deer habitat, grows a bunch of deer, implements a herd management scheme, shoots a mature buck, and says it's hunting. I see it as an expected outcome. Rather, hunting, by definition, does not provide for an expected outcome. If the deer herd wasn't there to begin with, it's not a natural resource. If a man plants a seed, fertilizes it, irrigates, provides for the best growing conditions the environment will allow, has a bumper crop and harvests, he is called a successful farmer or gardener, not natural resource manager because his management is for individual outcome. This kind of "hunting" and deer management is not good natural resource management, people. It's not what the DNR should be doing. Quit trying to waste my tax dollars and license fees on your special interest talk. Just because you suck at hunting doesn't mean we all need to pay your way out of it.

[mntatonka]

what an audit MAY do, is find out that the DNR isn't spending enough money to double check their model. In which case, they'll have to spend more money to do so, which means they'll raise our licenses again. They're not going to take a higher percentage of the license fund and directly spend it on deer than they already are.

[PurpleFloyd]

If the MDDI want the audit, then why don't they pay for it? How can you have an independent audit when the one being audited is the one paying? The proposal is to fund the audit with license sales. With decreased tag revenue that means this added cost will have more of an impact on the budget.

[Bureaucrat]

PF, I'm gonna call this round a tie (on the "What happens after the audit?" question.) I'm also gonna give you credit for pointing out the fact that the auditor is going to be auditing something whether this happens or not.

I am merely one guy supporting MDDI, but I took a stab at the question above. I posted this in the politics forum, so it's fair to assume some haven't seen it. Here it is snipped outta page three over there...

*What, where, who, how to do it? What to do with it when it's done? Biologists, wildlife managers, agency heads, legislative committees, LCCMR, and LSOHC are all responsible for or stakeholders in those answers. If they can't do what they need to with the findings of the audit, shouldn't the very legitimacy of their role be called into question?

Participation points on this one at least?

[PurpleFloyd]

No, That response either indicates you have no idea what will happen and were just throwing stuff out there or you do know and you don't want the average hunter to really understand the process so you threw some garbage out there and hoped you didn't get called out to expand on it.

So, in fairness I am going to give you a third chance to lay out what the MDDI believes the timeline will be if the OLA takes your case up this session and if their findings support your contention before changes are made and how that process will work.

[Bureaucrat]

I can't do that any easier than I can prove Bigfoot is in Northern MN. But that won't stop me from working on either.

Fact is, many agencies and advisers provide expert testimony to legislators and program managers all the time. There can be no assurance that policy makers will take well the advice and findings from experts or auditors. Their job is to present their findings and leave it to the policy makers. Same goes for all of government, whether it be on energy, education, war, poverty, health care, salt, mass transit, etc.

Uncle Glen once told me, "If the truly smartest among us ran this country, we wouldn't have any of the problems we have now." Until then, it's gonna take some work, and that work is periodic review and adjustment in the face of questionable inconsistencies.

That's government. What I want to see happen is an acknowledgement that a problem exists in the process and decision makers are made aware. Then it's back on us as a group to decide if it merits further action.

[smsmith]

So, in fairness I am going to give you a third chance to lay out what the MDDI believes the timeline will be if the OLA takes your case up this session and if their findings support your contention before changes are made and how that process will work.

"In fairness" lol

At no time did anyone associated with the MDDI give any implication that an audit was going to be a "quick fix". As to answering your question...the answer would be "who knows?"

Since our DNR deer management has never been audited there is no basis on which to answer your question. How will it work? Again...who knows. Since our DNR deer management has never been audited how could anyone possibly answer that question?

The most recent review in WI (their DNR has undergone much public scrutiny and many reviews/audits) was begun sometime in 2010 or 2011 as I recall. I believe the review was completed sometime in late 2012. Major changes in management are taking place this year. Would a similar timeline apply in MN? Again...who knows?

Given the complete reticence and apathy in this state...I'll be amazed if anything ever gets done. Minnesotans have put up with not being able to buy a sixpack of beer on Sunday for how long? My guess is that since everybody here is just fine with letting the gooberment do whatever they do that MN will remain the laughing stock in the deer hunting world they currently are forever.

[Bureaucrat]

There is a chance the audit will uncover exactly what we're alleging is a problem. There is an even greater chance nothing will get done as SMSmith says. There is many a powerful interest in St. Paul that not only don't support deer and deer hunting, but despise it.

I wish we had the resources to hire the wolf advocates or anti-mining advocates to take up our cause.

[BLACKJACK]

Given the complete reticence and apathy in this state...I'll be amazed if anything ever gets done. Minnesotans have put up with not being able to buy a sixpack of beer on Sunday for how long? My guess is that since everybody here is just fine with letting the gooberment do whatever they do that MN will remain the laughing stock in the deer hunting world they currently are forever.

If a person isn't smart enough to stock up on beer the other 6 days of the week then they deserve to go thirsty on Sunday. Let the retailers and clerks have a day off. And if you don't like MN don't let the door hit you in the arse on the way out. I spent 4 years in the Navy traveling to other states, in comparison, MN is a pretty good place to live.

[smsmith]

If a person isn't smart enough to stock up on beer the other 6 days of the week then they deserve to go thirsty on Sunday. Let the retailers and clerks have a day off. And if you don't like MN don't let the door hit you in the arse on the way out. I spent 4 years in the Navy traveling to other states, in comparison, MN is a pretty good place to live.

If it weren't for family....I'd take your suggestion and give my tax dollars to another state.

[SmellEsox]

If the MDDI want the audit, then why don't they pay for it? How can you have an independent audit when the one being audited is the one paying? The proposal is to fund the audit with license sales. With decreased tag revenue that means this added cost will have more of an impact on the budget.

I have yet to hear how an audit actually changes the way the DNR manages. Sure an audit may outline flaws, imperfections and irregularities but that doesn't guarantee change in management. The DNR (and all other gov't agencies) manages within a framework of statutes. As far as I can tell they have done that. I have yet to find a statute outlining herd density requirements.

Hunting has become a sport and sport=business. If you don't like the store, then don't shop there. I'd like to see more of you going to Kansas.

I see hunting a little different than most. A hunter is one than that pursues wild game given whatever the conditions provide. The people supporting this audit are one's that want the DNR to make them successful hunters. I liken you more to farmers than hunters. You want to manage and harvest, not hunt. The DNR is not mandated to manage deer as a farming operation: high yield per acre, quality guarantees, etc. Although, if you own land, I would strongly urge you to focus your own farming philosophy there. You can put on the camo and call yourself what you want but at the very least lets be honest about what this audit and the associated groups represent: the Walmart of hunting. They promote harvest and not hunting. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with that other than you trying to impose your philosophy upon the rest of us. This state has a heritage of hunting and frankly, I find it appalling that you seek out to destroy it.

Man you are awesome. You must have been bored 10 years ago when we had more deer. It must have been too easy for you.

Lots of assumptions bro. Maybe you can't hold a candle to some of these hunters. Also, please explain how having a few more deer on the landscape is going to ruin the hunting heritage of the state.

Should we quit fighting for more CRP because it's just whining about having more pheasants for us to shoot? Should we quit worrying and whining about wetland drainage because it is just about wanting more ducks to shoot. Should we beg the DNR to quit stocking fish cause it is just farming for fish? The fact is most guys tied to MDDI are concerned about our hunting heritage. They know that kids are getting disinterested. I doubt these guys are as selfish about their desires to kill something or have more deer on their land as you make them out to be. It is more about preserving our deer hunting heritage than selfish desires IMO.