Audit Push: Time To Act!

[B. Amish]

30 deer and 10 are shot = 20 deer

26 deer and 6 are shot = 20 deer

harvest drops 40% and population is the same.

[SmellEsox]

30 deer and 10 are shot = 20 deer

26 deer and 6 are shot = 20 deer

harvest drops 40% and population is the same.

You got it backwards. I mean population drops but harvest stays the same.

[Getanet]

That would seem to nearly impossible over the long term. Unless the population was ridiculously high to begin with.

[btheturkey]

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.

An audit will likely result in changes. Audits identify strengths and weaknesses, and more efficient use of funds and resources.

I wholehearted disagree with your statement.

[Jameson]

If the goal harvest is 200,000 is the DNR doing a worse job when the harvest is 290,000 or 150,000?

[PurpleFloyd]

How much tolerance is going to make the MDDI happy in deviating from 200k per year? If you take the average over the last 20 years, the average is very close to 200k.

[PurpleFloyd]

It seems to me that the way to get the harvest numbers that are expected by the MDDI, the only way to accomplish what they want is to go to a 100% lottery system where they regulate the number of licenses sold and limit them to a certain number that satisfies the MDDI. It seems to be working with the wolf and turkey population and it has also worked for Bear and until recently Moose. That way they can control how many deer are taken from every zone.

[DaveT]

It seems to me that the way to get the harvest numbers that are expected by the MDDI, the only way to accomplish what they want is to go to a 100% lottery system where they regulate the number of licenses sold and limit them to a certain number that satisfies the MDDI. It seems to be working with the wolf and turkey population and it has also worked for Bear and until recently Moose. That way they can control how many deer are taken from every zone.

PF, maybe in a few zones with a lot of hunters and very few deer this would be necessary, but I highly doubt it. That is exactly how most other states do manage their elk, moose, antelope, and mule deer, however. When you have more hunters than game you have to do something, don't you?

MN showed we can rebound pretty well by going to bucks only in the 70s. A couple seasons of conservative doe tags coupled with decent winters will have us back where we should be. I want to make sure the DNR doesn't make the same mistakes again, though. Left unchecked, they will go right back to the same management that got us where we are today. There are better tools out there for them to use. There are better ways for them to collect and interpret data. I want to make sure they are as efficient and accurate as possible. I'm hoping this audit and the outcry from concerned hunters will motivate them to be and do better.

I also have a healthy distrust of government and expect incompetence and complacency in everything they do, except when it comes to listening to my cell phone calls or stealing my income. However, I don't see how they could do much worse, and something has to change.

[PurpleFloyd]

Dave- your beloved state of Kansas does just that with their non resident deer permits?

Why don't you fill us in on how their license process works for residents and non residents.

[SmellEsox]

If the goal harvest is 200,000 is the DNR doing a worse job when the harvest is 290,000 or 150,000?

150,000 of course! Seriously though, if hunters are funding deer management, I would rather they err on the side of conservatism rather than whacking them down too far and then trying to bring them back.

Instead of plucking that magical 200,000 number out of the sky, I would rather they just shoot for higher population goals in certain areas. The transition zone is some of the best whitetail habitat on the continent. It should be managed for more deer. Obviously the SW farm country is limited by habitat and the NE has winter and predation issues. Why not take your best habitat and manage it for great hunting?

[willyfahey]

Yes, bringing forth an audit that targets biomass models will not work because the DNR will always go back to their corrective checks and balances efforts as the point of support to make sure that their backside is covered (they did it with Mille Lacs in regards to the population decline). The models aren't the problem anyway. Like in my original post, the only grounds for structural change or accountability to the DNR can be made via the heritage amendment of the state constitution or egregious use of funds (if you can expose that then you really got something). The beauty of science is that it's acceptable to get it wrong. I see the real solution being more groups getting involved proactively within the DNR. Rather than criticizing and pointing fingers at specific people for specific actions, get involved in the programs and volunteer. Actions speak louder than words and input is better received when your standing next to someone sharing in the burden. Pheasants Forever's successes is a great example of this. The money game will not change until our hunting society changes from a standpoint of "successful" harvest(successful hunts are a contentious debate with no right answer) back to habitat and hunting heritage (access, pursuit and family). I would add, though, that as a private land owner, one should not be waiting around for the DNR to manage their property. It's your land, make it what you want it to be. If you tried and cannot, then perhaps you should have a better understanding of what it means to be a DNR biologist; spent a lot of money with little or no return.

[Jameson]

If the goal harvest is 200,000 is the DNR doing a worse job when the harvest is 290,000 or 150,000?

[hockeybc69]

From Dec 2011 article in the Pioneer Press.

Although more permits - at least about 512,000 - were sold than ever before, the number of deer killed - likely to be a little more than 192,000 - is well below last year's harvest of about 207,000.

It's also below the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources' general goal of 200,000, a number that Lou Cornicelli, the agency's big-game coordinator, has called the "sweet spot" for a stable deer population.

[DaveT]

Dave- your beloved state of Kansas does just that with their non resident deer permits?

Why don't you fill us in on how their license process works for residents and non residents.

Residents are over the counter, non resident landowners (80 acres or more) can get an over the counter hunt your own land tag, general non resident is lottery by zone, based on a host of factors that their DNR considers important but I don't know what they are. They have a quality product, (a healthy deer population with a representative amount of trophy bucks)and wish to maintain that quality for their residents and non resident hunters alike. By limiting non resident tags they can make sure that areas are not over hunted and/or over harvested. It's a very logical thing to do and it's why they and other states like them can charge 4 or 5 hundred dollars for a deer tag and sell out every year. And contrary to popular belief, the entire state is not leased up by outfitters and our group has gotten free permission to hunt 5 (and counting) nearby properties.

I don't know how many non resident hunters are coming to MN but I doubt it's very many. I would fully support limiting their licenses if I thought they were harming the overall quality of hunting for MN residents. Every western state does exactly that with their game animals.

Is that what you were looking for, PF? I don't see a problem with a state limiting non residents to ensure that the residents have a quality hunt. I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the audit but there's my take.

[mntatonka]

I don't know how many non resident hunters are coming to MN but I doubt it's very many. I would fully support limiting their licenses if I thought they were harming the overall quality of hunting for MN residents. Every western state does exactly that with their game animals.

roughly 14,500 non-resident hunters come to MN every year. It's been stable at that number for about the last 10 years.

[Jameson]

just for you hockeybc69, from fall of 2013...

“The season outlook this year is pretty good. Based on our harvest regulations last year the population is estimated to be up a little bit so folks should see a few more deer out there. And I expect the harvest should be about what it was last year or a little bit higher than that. The unknowns right now if we are going to get good weather conditions. The crop harvest is delayed relative to last year so folks might find a little more challenging environment.”

source: http://www.knuj.net/2013/11/minnesota-deer-season-outlook/

"Last year we had a real ideal opener and nice weather," she said. "It seems like each weekend this year has been challenging for their own reasons. Opening weekend was really windy and we've had wind and rain and last weekend was really cold."

source: http://www.mprnews.org/story/2013/11/29/harvest-numbers-down-as-deer-gun-season-comes-to-a-close

“The reason giving our projected harvest numbers is so difficult is that weather plays a major role in the number of hunters who hunt during Minnesota’s deer season. If the state has bad, severe weather during the season, and fewer hunters hunt, the harvest will be light. However, if our state has favorable weather conditions, we may have a really good deer harvest this season.”

source: http://www.gameandfishmag.com/deer-forecast/minnesota-deer-forecast-2013/

“Based on our population estimates, the decrease in buck harvest was not anticipated and may reflect hunting conditions more than population,” said Leslie McInenly, DNR big game program leader. “Based on the preliminary numbers, our opening and second weekend harvests from Saturday to Monday were down 4 and 13 percent, respectively, and we experienced windy conditions the first weekend and both wind and rain the second weekend.”

source: http://blogs.twincities.com/outdoors/201...cent-from-2012/

...

If wind, and rain, can be used as a reason for deflated harvest numbers, they can be used for inflated numbers in 2012 and any good weather year.

[hockeybc69]

ok.... And??

[Jameson]

and how bad were things already in 2012 since the numbers were inflated by the weather?

and how much does the unrecognized overly big harvest of 2012, coupled with the tough winters of 2013,2014, all play together?

I don't know....and nothing really...just frustrated.

[hockeybc69]

I do apologize, but I am not following at all.

What do you mean by inflated numbers due to weather in 2012? The harvest that year was down, just as it has been over the last several years.

[SmellEsox]

I do apologize, but I am not following at all.

What do you mean by inflated numbers due to weather in 2012? The harvest that year was down, just as it has been over the last several years.

I think he is talking about how weather conditions during season were excellent for hunting. Did that cause a higher than normal harvest because condition were so good? DNR is quick to blame weather for bad harvests but won't acknowledge that harvests might be inflated (higher than expected and have a higher impact on populations)when weather is good.

[bigbucks]

I think that's what he means as well. Although I'm really not in favor of spending the money on an audit, I do think it's a valid point that optimum hunting weather can increase the harvest above what it should be. There are days when all the deer are moving & days when none of them are moving. If those days fall during opening weekend of firearm season the harvest has to be impacted either direction.

I've said this before, but as far as I'm concerned the population in Central MN bottomed out in 2012 & has improved each of the last two years. I'm not talking bottomed out as in all time lows, but as in the lowest since the early to mid 90's. That's just in the areas I hunt, but it's definitely improved each of the last two years. I think the poor opening weekend firearms weather each of those years helped the population & lowered the kill. I hunt a lot through all the seasons & am living out in the country where I can see them regularly, no question there are more.

[hockeybc69]

I get it now.

bigbucks,

your area might be a hotspot.... my wildlife manager blames our areas lack of sightings to the fact we are in a coldspot.... year after year after year....

[bigbucks]

I hunt on multiple properties in 2 different areas, but that said, they're some pretty good spots. They are however both heavily hunted & harvested by a lot of guys.

[btheturkey]

In 2005 - 2007 stakeholders met and a 9% decrease to the state deer herd was planned.

As the harvest declined, the DNR held fast to the model which said deer numbers are not declining as harvest is suggesting.

They watched deer vehicle collisions drop in half and ignored the data. They stopped tracking fetal recruitment. They made no model adjustments for increased predation statewide. They used a magic eraser to change original density estimates to match the dropping harvest rates.

They blamed wind, rain and corn.

In 2008 Marrett Grund himself wrote 'the model is performing so poorly, I feel a recalibration is needed.' Our lead biologist knew the model was not working.

Science based herd monitoring tools were thrown in the trash because our DNR did not trust the results. And they were likely correct much of the time. $15,000 aerial surveys discarded as they did not match the model. We scheduled 18 of those $15,000 surveys for last winter. Thats $270,000 that was purposed for a tool that is not helping gauge the herd.

Throw in a couple bad winters and the herd is half the size it was.

And a bunch of us felt an audit may help straighten things out. And we are pursuing said audit.

Is it THE tool for change. Nope. Is it the ONLY tool we are using? Nope. Is it helping raise awareness? Yes.

We have slid well past the planned reduction, and the doe slaughter was not over. The collective voice helped facilitate the conservative regs we have this year. The herd has a chance to grow if we don't revert, but the herd will not grow if we do not have some wholesale changes to deer management in MN.

Over 60% of the elected we have contacted officially support the audit and changes to our deer management system because they can see the glaring issues that are right there in black and white.

Our deer model and herd monitoring are a fail, and the DNR's inability to recognize the problems and lack of initiative to find a better system led us to where we are at.

[PurpleFloyd]

Residents are over the counter, non resident landowners (80 acres or more) can get an over the counter hunt your own land tag, general non resident is lottery by zone, based on a host of factors that their DNR considers important but I don't know what they are. They have a quality product, (a healthy deer population with a representative amount of trophy bucks)and wish to maintain that quality for their residents and non resident hunters alike. By limiting non resident tags they can make sure that areas are not over hunted and/or over harvested. It's a very logical thing to do and it's why they and other states like them can charge 4 or 5 hundred dollars for a deer tag and sell out every year. And contrary to popular belief, the entire state is not leased up by outfitters and our group has gotten free permission to hunt 5 (and counting) nearby properties.

I don't know how many non resident hunters are coming to MN but I doubt it's very many. I would fully support limiting their licenses if I thought they were harming the overall quality of hunting for MN residents. Every western state does exactly that with their game animals.

Is that what you were looking for, PF? I don't see a problem with a state limiting non residents to ensure that the residents have a quality hunt. I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the audit but there's my take.

[PurpleFloyd]

In 2005 - 2007 stakeholders met and a 9% decrease to the state deer herd was planned.

As the harvest declined, the DNR held fast to the model which said deer numbers are not declining as harvest is suggesting.

They watched deer vehicle collisions drop in half and ignored the data. They stopped tracking fetal recruitment. They made no model adjustments for increased predation statewide. They used a magic eraser to change original density estimates to match the dropping harvest rates.

They blamed wind, rain and corn.

In 2008 Marrett Grund himself wrote 'the model is performing so poorly, I feel a recalibration is needed.' Our lead biologist knew the model was not working.

Science based herd monitoring tools were thrown in the trash because our DNR did not trust the results. And they were likely correct much of the time. $15,000 aerial surveys discarded as they did not match the model. We scheduled 18 of those $15,000 surveys for last winter. Thats $270,000 that was purposed for a tool that is not helping gauge the herd.

Throw in a couple bad winters and the herd is half the size it was.

And a bunch of us felt an audit may help straighten things out. And we are pursuing said audit.

Is it THE tool for change. Nope. Is it the ONLY tool we are using? Nope. Is it helping raise awareness? Yes.

We have slid well past the planned reduction, and the doe slaughter was not over. The collective voice helped facilitate the conservative regs we have this year. The herd has a chance to grow if we don't revert, but the herd will not grow if we do not have some wholesale changes to deer management in MN.

Over 60% of the elected we have contacted officially support the audit and changes to our deer management system because they can see the glaring issues that are right there in black and white.

Our deer model and herd monitoring are a fail, and the DNR's inability to recognize the problems and lack of initiative to find a better system led us to where we are at.

[PurpleFloyd]

And for Non residents in Kansas:

Quote:

9. How many deer permits can a nonresident receive?

2013 Deer FAQs

Up to seven, as listed below:

One nonresident combo deer permit, which is valid for one white-tailed buck, doe or fawn and one white-tailed antlerless deer.

As many as five Nonresident Antlerless-Only White-tailed Deer Permits

One Nonresident Antlerless Either-species Deer permit for units 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 17, and 18 only.

I bet their herd is decimated.

[PurpleFloyd]

Quote:

20. Can I hunt with a crossbow during the 2014 deer season?

2014 Deer FAQs

CROSSBOWS

Crossbows are now part of the legal archery equipment, which means they are legal equipment during any season. Anyone with a permit valid during an archery season may hunt during that season with a crossbow.

Holy cow, you can even hunt with a crossbow.

[mntatonka]

PF, correct me if I'm wrong or misreading the regs, but I don't believe it says you must take a buck before purchasing a doe tag. It simply says you have you BUY a buck tag before buying a doe tag.

[PurpleFloyd]

It looks like the biggest factor is that 95% of the land in Kansas is Private vs Public, over 90% of the hunters hunt on private land and over 90% of the deer harvested in Kansas are harvested on Private land.

Looks like we need to sell off the vast majority of our public hands and put it into the hands of the private individuals so they can manage it properly and get the government out of it.