Audit Push: Time To Act!

[DaveT]

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]

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 one-just-like-silly-me-umptions 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.

It's not an assumption, but opinion and doubt. My argument is not that more deer is a bad thing. It's how you get it that's the problem. The DNR has a statutory mandate to manage natural resources not an agricultural business model. I do not assume that a change to hunting mentality is being swayed by the ranchers' big buck business model because it is. Now, that movement is trying to sway the DNR in that direction.

If you track my posts on this site, you would find that I have a strong stance against the DNR's movement away from natural resource management to special interest and political management. What some of you have missed in all of this is that the cause of your unhappiness with the deer populations and the DNR are the same causes that are promoting this audit. 10 Years ago or so, there were other special interests on the opposite side of this debate pushing for decreased deer populations, increase huntership and the DNR's need to boost license sales in order to support management of the sport, not the resource. So, by supporting more political movements and ideologies to sway the DNR in one direction or the other perpetuates the cycle of mismanagement. Because, how can one properly manage a resource that is swayed from one objective to the other based upon political and special interest outcry. The focus should be on the resource and it's heritage.

Your audits' advocates site models in other states that have huge logistical differences; one being hunter/license per capita. Actually, most of them are based upon limited hunter access which is contrary to our state's constitutional mandate for the DNR. So when you say "what can a few more deer hurt", I feel sorry that you would so blindly sell yourself to a simplistic point of view.

And no I wasn't bored. It was fun shooting 5 deer with my bow. The DNR even took some of the work out of it by allowing me to donate some of the meat (another special interest influence to discourage wanton waste). Just be careful of what you wish for and who you partner with. Since when is it the DNR's responsibility to get kids involved in hunting? Isn't it the parents'. I seem to think that my kids' interests in hunting come from my introducing them to it and not the DNR's or MDDI's management scheme. To think, it's all the government's fault. Pretty sad.

[Farmsfulltime]

well said , Thanks

[SmellEsox]

It's not an assumption, but opinion and doubt. My argument is not that more deer is a bad thing. It's how you get it that's the problem. The DNR has a statutory mandate to manage natural resources not an agricultural business model. I do not assume that a change to hunting mentality is being swayed by the ranchers' big buck business model because it is. Now, that movement is trying to sway the DNR in that direction.

If you track my posts on this site, you would find that I have a strong stance against the DNR's movement away from natural resource management to special interest and political management. What some of you have missed in all of this is that the cause of your unhappiness with the deer populations and the DNR are the same causes that are promoting this audit. 10 Years ago or so, there were other special interests on the opposite side of this debate pushing for decreased deer populations, increase huntership and the DNR's need to boost license sales in order to support management of the sport, not the resource. So, by supporting more political movements and ideologies to sway the DNR in one direction or the other perpetuates the cycle of mismanagement. Because, how can one properly manage a resource that is swayed from one objective to the other based upon political and special interest outcry. The focus should be on the resource and it's heritage.

Your audits' advocates site models in other states that have huge logistical differences; one being hunter/license per capita. Actually, most of them are based upon limited hunter access which is contrary to our state's constitutional mandate for the DNR. So when you say "what can a few more deer hurt", I feel sorry that you would so blindly sell yourself to a simplistic point of view.

And no I wasn't bored. It was fun shooting 5 deer with my bow. The DNR even took some of the work out of it by allowing me to donate some of the meat (another special interest influence to discourage wanton waste). Just be careful of what you wish for and who you partner with. Since when is it the DNR's responsibility to get kids involved in hunting? Isn't it the parents'. I seem to think that my kids' interests in hunting come from my introducing them to it and not the DNR's or MDDI's management scheme. To think, it's all the government's fault. Pretty sad.

Impossible to just manage the resource in regards to deer. It is the only game animal (besides maybe geese) where "social carrying capacity" is part of the equation. And besides, if DNR was able to just manage the resource (w/o regard to public pressure) they would manage for very low populations as this is what they were taught was best for forest ecosystems. Although I didn't hear the outcry 10 years ago from anybody (I'll take your word for it), the DNR decided to cut deer numbers, and hunters actually gave them their blessing. Well, the feeling is that it went way too far the other way. We want it to go back a bit the other way. There has to be a more suitable compromise the DNR can set there goals at.

As far as introducing kids to hunting, yes, I agree. It is up to the parents and I've done my best to get my kids involved. Very hard to do though when they don't see much. When I was a kid it didn't take much to keep me hooked. It's different nowadays. Kids have other things to do. And, the DNR definitely has an interest in getting kids involved. That's why they have programs for recruitment and retention and youth days and free or cheap youth licenses and B.O.W. and studies to find out why people aren't hunting anymore. It's their bread and butter in the future. They better be attentive to getting kids involved. IMO the best way to get kids hooked is to have enough game out there to keep them interested.

[BLACKJACK]

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

I didn't mean to sound so harsh but when you start slamming everything Minnesotan just because you're not seeing enough deer....

[smsmith]

I didn't mean to sound so harsh but when you start slamming everything Minnesotan just because you're not seeing enough deer....

No harm no foul. This state frustrates me on many levels...not just deer. If/when the right opportunity arises to leave...I will do so.

As for dirt tracks in SD...that's what I live on here. My township does a dump job of taking care of my road, doesn't mow the ditches and I've had to plow a path out to the main road a few winter mornings so folks can get to work. Local county roads are in pi$$ poor condition too. Major intersections on hills receive sand only after I call and raise some heck. Quality of services here certainly isn't a selling point to me.

I imagine if walleye fishing is a person's passion, then MN is a fine state in which to live.

[Bureaucrat]

Should the DNR not have intervened in the Upper Red Lake collapse?

Should the DNR not have shot the cormorants on Leech?

Should the DNR quit stocking the SE MN trout streams?

Are you also against the reintroduction of sturgeon to Big Stone?

Nobody broke the law when Mille Lacs walleye fell apart? Should the DNR take a hands off approach there?

The prairie chickens are on the ropes. Should the DNR just let it happen?

Turkeys have taken a foothold in much of southern MN through re-introduction. Was that a bad thing?

Now we hear that the governor is getting a work group or task force together for pheasants. Are you against that?

Yes, we want to see more normal deer populations. We feel the regs and limits were left too generous for too long and the current situation while perhaps not completely preventable, certainly could have been mitigated in the scope of the decline through some proactive pulling back on loose limits. No such thing occurred, because there was no admission of a problem. And therein lies the problem.

How are we any different from any other group out there that is advocating for more "x"? We're seeking a review of population and goal setting models. What we're seeking is not near as intrusive as the groups engaging in a battle with farmers and urban sprawlers over land usage. I think this is getting blown way out of proportion, and why I have no idea.

I am trying to wrap my head around the fears here. Is it the whack and stack crowd that just loves killing? Is it the "I have to feed my family" crowd that believes they have a right and moral duty to subsist completely off the land? I just wish the masses would give a hoot about deer as much as any other resource in MN.

[willyfahey]

Hey, I don't have all the answers. I am strongly for DNR management reform. But I do know what politics, in the last 15 years or so, has done to the DNR and that's why we are here. There's more pushing than pulling. The failure of Mille Lacs and other areas of the state have many parallels to the deer hunting situation. (Mille lacs crashed in part due to a focus towards TROPHY management). There was a change of focus from what was long practiced to a new ideology of managing resources for sport, business, and tribes, not biology. I find that the core issue. The DNR is made up of biologists not business grads. How do you think the 90's deer populations arose from the total state wide closure of deer hunting in the early 70's? DNR Management perhaps? Were the models not working then? My point is to rid ourselves of the conjecture/theories, business models, etc and go with what works/worked and has proven statewide historical evidence to back it up. This isn't some new issue that's never been dealt with before.

Whether people choose to acknowledge it or not, there was tremendous pushing 10 years ago or so for more deer being harvested on a number of fronts : public safety, to promote interest in deer hunting through increased hunter success rates in order to counter the decrease in hunters, improve buck quality by decreasing the doe:buck ratio, increase revenue without large primary license fee increases, etc. Doe tag sales went down and primary licenses went up in price this year, right? Now, here we are arguing back for more deer. I'm afraid I'm seeing a cycle here. Doesn't business operate within a cyclical nature? Get the DNR to quit looking at our resources as dollars and cents and then we all will have the kind of hunting we are looking for. Can someone tell me if there's a special interest group like this that I can get behind?

[PurpleFloyd]

Should the DNR not have intervened in the Upper Red Lake collapse?

Should the DNR not have shot the cormorants on Leech?

Should the DNR quit stocking the SE MN trout streams?

Are you also against the reintroduction of sturgeon to Big Stone?

Nobody broke the law when Mille Lacs walleye fell apart? Should the DNR take a hands off approach there?

The prairie chickens are on the ropes. Should the DNR just let it happen?

Turkeys have taken a foothold in much of southern MN through re-introduction. Was that a bad thing?

Now we hear that the governor is getting a work group or task force together for pheasants. Are you against that?

Yes, we want to see more normal deer populations. We feel the regs and limits were left too generous for too long and the current situation while perhaps not completely preventable, certainly could have been mitigated in the scope of the decline through some proactive pulling back on loose limits. No such thing occurred, because there was no admission of a problem. And therein lies the problem.

How are we any different from any other group out there that is advocating for more "x"? We're seeking a review of population and goal setting models. What we're seeking is not near as intrusive as the groups engaging in a battle with farmers and urban sprawlers over land usage. I think this is getting blown way out of proportion, and why I have no idea.

I am trying to wrap my head around the fears here. Is it the whack and stack crowd that just loves killing? Is it the "I have to feed my family" crowd that believes they have a right and moral duty to subsist completely off the land? I just wish the masses would give a hoot about deer as much as any other resource in MN.

How many of those happened only after an audit was called for and enacted?

In the end, what does our opinion matter? You have the ability to request the audit all by yourself without any petition and if you have discovered fraud, theft or any other illegal activity by the DNR you can push it up to the front of the line.

[Farmsfulltime]

Is it possible that an audit under the statue quoted cannot be done because there has been no fraud, theft, or illegal acts on the dnrs actions . Just saying its probably because of no solid grounds that mddi can find on their own

[delcecchi]

Hey, I don't have all the answers. I am strongly for DNR management reform. But I do know what politics, in the last 15 years or so, has done to the DNR and that's why we are here. There's more pushing than pulling. The failure of Mille Lacs and other areas of the state have many parallels to the deer hunting situation. (Mille lacs crashed in part due to a focus towards TROPHY management). There was a change of focus from what was long practiced to a new ideology of managing resources for sport, business, and tribes, not biology. (snip)

I would dispute your allegations about Mille Lacs. The slot was put in place to limit the harvest to a safe level when combined with the tribal quota. The biologists figured out the number of pounds that could be harvested.

Slot was believed to be the most palatable way of limiting harvest, as opposed to dramatically lower limits or way shorter season. Turns out it may have had unanticipated consequences but it sure wasn't put in place to create "trophys". Now the Musky regs statewide are but that is another fish and another discussion.

As for deer, it must be hard to decide on policies when they have little way of knowing what the weather will do to the herd, especially in the far north. Now down here in the tropics it is a different story, but I don't see much in the way of posting from guys in the SE saying there aren't many deer.

[PurpleFloyd]

Is it possible that an audit under the statue quoted cannot be done because there has been no fraud, theft, or illegal acts on the dnrs actions . Just saying its probably because of no solid grounds that mddi can find on their own

[SmellEsox]

Whether people choose to acknowledge it or not, there was tremendous pushing 10 years ago or so for more deer being harvested on a number of fronts : public safety Do you have proof of this?, to promote interest in deer hunting through increased hunter success rates in order to counter the decrease in huntersHunter numbers were increasing 10 years ago., improve buck quality DNR has never wanted to improve buck quality. This was never done until hunters in the SE pushed it through.by decreasing the doe:buck ratio, increase revenue without large primary license fee increasesDNR told you or wrote that their goal was to increase revenue through increased license sales? I've never seen this written or admitted to by DNR. , etc. Doe tag sales went down and primary licenses went up in price this year, right? Now, here we are arguing back for more deer. I'm afraid I'm seeing a cycle here. Doesn't business operate within a cyclical nature? Get the DNR to quit looking at our resources as dollars and cents and then we all will have the kind of hunting we are looking for. Can someone tell me if there's a special interest group like this that I can get behind?

Is this just a bunch of your opinion? I don't think much of it is correct. The reason for increased license sales was to drive down deer numbers and keep them at a much lower level. They've been successful at doing it although they won't even acknowledge their success. This at the expense of a quality deer hunting experience for hunters in central MN.

[Farmsfulltime]

So whats the big deal mddi just ask for the audit you want and forget the petition or are you beating the drums to gain members= money =resources to further your agenda

[PurpleFloyd]

For a point of discussion,the DNR has the harvest data going back to the mid 90's with a state map showing the harvest per square mile and the harvest density as well as the harvest per square mile for each sex and as I looked through all of the years I don't see any spike in harvest PSM that would indicate any sort of surge in numbers that would lead to a collapse.

[PurpleFloyd]

So whats the big deal mddi just ask for the audit you want and forget the petition or are you beating the drums to gain members= money =resources to further your agenda

How to Suggest an Audit

Financial Audits are conducted on a schedule established by the Legislative Auditor and Deputy Legislative Auditor for the Financial Audit Division. If you have a suggestion for a financial audit, contact:

Cecile Ferkul, Deputy Legislative Auditor for Financial Audit Division

Phone: 651/297-2507

Or....

Report Possible Misuse of Public Money or Other Resources

The Office of the Legislative Auditor (OLA) will accept all allegations concerning the possible misuse of public money and other public resources (e.g., computers, telephones, equipment, work time, etc.). We will make a preliminary assessment of every allegation we receive to determine if an investigation by OLA is needed. We will also consider other options, including: (1) addressing the issue in a future audit or evaluation, (2) referring the issue to another office that can more appropriately conduct an investigation, or (3) taking no further action. OLA is more likely to conduct an investigation if there is evidence that an individual or organization may have violated a state law, rule, or policy that governs the use of public money or other resources.

It normally takes about two weeks for OLA to complete a preliminary assessment of an allegation and decide what additional action, if any, should be taken. If you provide us with a way to contact you, we will inform you of our decision.

You may provide information to OLA about your concern in any way you are comfortable—through a letter, telephone call, e-mail, or a personal visit to our office. One of the best ways is by filling out this form: Allegation Form

You may submit an allegation to OLA anonymously, but that might diminish our ability to pursue your concern. OLA has the authority to protect your personal information if that is necessary, and you can discuss those options with us by contacting us by telephone or visiting our office.

If you decide to submit your allegation in a letter, e-mail, or OLA Allegation Form and provide us with personal information (e.g., your name, address, telephone number, etc.) please indicate on the document you send us if you want your personal information to remain private.

You can contact OLA by telephone at 651-296-4708 or e-mail at [email protected].

[Farmsfulltime]

Learn something everyday it seems thanks for the information. I don't understand then why a petition ?

[PurpleFloyd]

Learn something everyday it seems thanks for the information. I don't understand then why a petition ?

Not needed but they look at a petition that has lots of signatures as having more weight than one that has none.

The problem is the majority of the responses in the change.org page demonstrate that those signing don't have a clue what they are really voting for. I posted the information above because I like to give people the best information on the topic possible whether it supports my position or not. That is the only way we can have an honest discussion.

[SmellEsox]

For a point of discussion,the DNR has the harvest data going back to the mid 90's with a state map showing the harvest per square mile and the harvest density as well as the harvest per square mile for each sex and as I looked through all of the years I don't see any spike in harvest PSM that would indicate any sort of surge in numbers that would lead to a collapse.

I don't think the herd is headed toward collapse and never did. The total harvest in this area is down 18-22 percent since 2003. The question is, what does that indicate population-wise? Is it down 18-20%? Or more? Maybe a decline in harvest by 18-20% means the population is down significantly more than that.

[willyfahey]

Smellessox

You make my point. The goal was to decrease deer numbers. But why you say?

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/heritage/background.html

Start reading.

http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/rlp/stats.pdf

This link shows directly how revenue was maintained through doe tags while actual license sales were dropping and price stayed the same. Obviously, the great recession attributed to the drop in 2008. Bonus tags started selling in 2004. Now the deer are gone and the DNR can no longer sell doe tags and the license fee goes up. Seriously, this is a dollars and cents game and that's it.

http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/recreation/hunting/deer/2012_harvest_total.pdf

Here's another link showing that since the 2003 peak harvest there has been a steady decline in total deer harvests. How was it that the DNR was able to maintain revenue levels while harvests declined for 10 years? I can tell you it had nothing to do with any models other than the ones being done by Southwick and other consultants. Wake up.

Like I said in my original post, this audit attacks this problem from the wrong direction. An audit won't change a thing but cost more time and money, whether allocated or not.

[Getanet]

I think it's tough to compare any particular year to 2003. That was the best it's ever been in MN in terms of total harvest. It would be like comparing your current crappie fishing to the Red Lake Boom years or your current level of fitness to when you were 18.

[willyfahey]

I'm not comparing anything to 2003. Just noting it as a transition point.

[Getanet]

I was referring to SmellEsox, we must have been typing at the same time and you beat me to the "submit" button.

[willyfahey]

that's funny.

Think about it this way. You are overseeing this huge gov't agency over the last 10 years and all this data points towards poor performance and management and loss of revenue. Yet your expenditures aren't shrinking. Are you going to go before congress with falling tax revenues and deficits and request more money or are you going to do it internally and sell more tags.

[ANYFISH2]

So your saying, the DNR has mismanaged the deer population in the name of revenue! !

But you are still against the audit?

What is a more appropriate action to take then?

[BRULEDRIFTER]

I don't think the herd is headed toward collapse and never did.

Come hang out in the woods in the arrowhead.....You may change your thoughts.

[Bear55]

I don't think the herd is headed toward collapse and never did. The total harvest in this area is down 18-22 percent since 2003. The question is, what does that indicate population-wise? Is it down 18-20%? Or more? Maybe a decline in harvest by 18-20% means the population is down significantly more than that.

You should be jumping for joy, 2003 harvest compared to the 2013 harvest in many NE areas is down anywhere from 60-80%.

[PurpleFloyd]

that's funny.

Think about it this way. You are overseeing this huge gov't agency over the last 10 years and all this data points towards poor performance and management and loss of revenue. Yet your expenditures aren't shrinking. Are you going to go before congress with falling tax revenues and deficits and request more money or are you going to do it internally and sell more tags.

I can't look it up right now but I thought that total liscense sales have increased over the past 10 years.maybe I am mistaken but it didn't seem like a lack of revenue problem.

What I have come to believe is That any reduction in the herd was initially triggered by the CWD outbreak and the decision by the DNR that the best way to prevent a widespread outbreak was to keep densities lower than they were in the 2002-2003 period when it first surfaced.

It seems to me they had things about right with the exception of the OTC doe tags that allowed a Hunter to take excessive amounts of does.other than that, had the weather patterns stayed as they were a decade ago we wouldn't be talking about this.

[SmellEsox]

Come hang out in the woods in the arrowhead.....You may change your thoughts.

I agree with you about the NE. But that area is unique in that winter and predation do have an extreme impact on the herd there. From the transition and south, not so much. Even with last winter, which was one of the worst in the last 100+ years in central MN, we still appeared to have little mortality here. If there was significant mortality here last winter, we will see a significant reduction in buck harvest this fall.

[SmellEsox]

The question I still have, and I'm mainly talking about the transition zone where they have been so liberal with antlerless permits, is, how does the reduced harvest translate to actual population? I know Missouri has acknowledged that you can still maintain high harvests as the population is declining significantly. IMO that is what needs to be looked at. Is the population model trustworthy and accurate when it is not calibrated, ever, or very seldom. Because it sure seems like there are far fewer deer around here despite fairly flat harvest.