Audit Push: Time To Act!

[Jameson]

Much like deer numbers, there is no way to get an exact number. The USDA comes out with weekly reports using percentages so I suppose you could take the percentages against the total acres planted if you need an exact number that badly. Not sure hoe that would help with anything anyway, seeing this state is so diverse and harvest could be completely done in one area and just starting in another. If they are just starting harvest in an area with high deer numbers and hunter numbers it will hurt total deer harvest much more than standing corn in sw mn. With all these variables, the exact number would be borderline useless.

so.......serious question then..........is using standing corn as a reason for a reduced harvest a steaming pile of deer droppings?

[creepworm]

so.......serious question then..........is using standing corn as a reason for a reduced harvest a steaming pile of deer droppings?

Absolutely not. Deer go into standing corn. Standing corn is almost impossible to hunt effectively. Therefore, less deer are shot in areas where they are utilizing standing corn as cover.

I guess I do not understand your train of thought. Because we can't say the exact amount of acres of standing corn means that the standing corn had no effect on deer harvest?

I seriously do not get it.

[Jameson]

Added the bold to your quote in my last post. It basically states that total acres harvested doesn't matter, but rather what acres are harvested. So, a bunch of standing corn, where there are not many deer (sw MN as you noted), isn't going to have a big impact on total deer harvested in the state, correct?

[creepworm]

Added the bold to your quote in my last post. It basically states that total acres harvested doesn't matter, but rather what acres are harvested. So, a bunch of standing corn, where there are not many deer (sw MN as you noted), isn't going to have a big impact on total deer harvested in the state, correct?

Not sure how you got that. I am comparing two areas and saying that if, say, Todd county has 100% of the corn left in the field, it will most likely have a larger effect on overall harvest than if Nobles county has 100% of its corn left in the field.

I am not saying that if Nobles county has 100% of its corn in the field it will not have an effect on overall harvest.

I am going to be sitting on stand in SE SD in the morning. If I see less than 10 deer I am going to start an online petition to have the SD GFP audited. Never mind that this area was ravaged by EHD 2 years ago and the GFP has cut tags roughly 50%. I want more deer in this area right now and even though they are trying to get deer populations back to where they were by cutting tags, it is not good enough.

[Jameson]

...I am going to be sitting on stand in SE SD in the morning. If I see less than 10 deer I am going to start an online petition to have the SD GFP audited. Never mind that this area was ravaged by EHD 2 years ago and the GFP has cut tags roughly 50%. I want more deer in this area right now and even though they are trying to get deer populations back to where they were by cutting tags, it is not good enough.

Good to read that the SD GFP is doing good work. Unlike the MN DNR who liberalized bag limits after the tough winter/spring of 2012/2013. If the MN DNR was doing as good as job as the SD GFP then I doubt that MDDI would have ever been created.

[creepworm]

Good to read that the SD GFP is doing good work. Unlike the MN DNR who liberalized bag limits after the tough winter/spring of 2012/2013. If the MN DNR was doing as good as job as the SD GFP then I doubt that MDDI would have ever been created.

They did nothing the year after EHD took the numbers way down. This year, they cut the rifle permits in half. So basically it took them a year to realize the full effect the EHD and when that was realized they reacted. If you replace EHD with hard winters and terrible fawning weather, it should sound eerily familiar to MN.

This is one of the big questions I have about the MDDI (among many others). You want doe permits reduced. The MN DNR did that. You won. You got exactly what you wanted. You should be celebrating. But instead the MDDI keeps pushing for something that has already happened. Why? When will the MDDI be happy? What exactly is the end game for the MDDI?

[creepworm]

Oh, and I saw one deer this morning. It was crossing the road on the way to the land I was going to be hunting. It was going into an unharvested corn field. But after I thought about it I realized I must be mistaken, I do not know the exact number of acres of unharvested corn in SD at the moment. So therefore, the deer do not enter the corn and the unharvested corn has no effect on harvest. Right Jameson?

Also, I thought the 20 mph wind may have had an effect on my deer sightings today. But then I realized I did not know the exact wind velocity while I was out in the blind, therefore, the wind could not have possibly had an effect on deer sightings.

So now I am going to have to start an online petition. I was really hoping I wouldn't have to do that. But I have sat 4 times this season in SD and only had one deer that gave me a perfect shot with my bow. It should have been dozens by now.

[Farmsfulltime]

I don't think an online audit request will work in South Dakota as it has been tried in other areas and there doesn't seem to be much support for it no matter how much you complain . You could do the logical thing and let nature take it coarse as the DNR in South Dakota seems to have addressed the problem the best they could and im sure the deer will respond accordingly .

[Farmsfulltime]

MDDI was created to address apr and when supporters figured out that that would not sell they switched gears to general population levels as that is an easier agenda to sell the rest of the hunters . Once the deer populations are 30 DPSM or more then the talk will turn to quality issues age structure ect . Most of the talk comes from QDMA members who bought into that program and went with that for a few years to try and educate the unknowing hunters on how to manage the herd . Well the majority did not follow their lead and now they want to legislate change to achieve their goals . Flame away

[Jameson]

Oh, and I saw one deer this morning. It was crossing the road on the way to the land I was going to be hunting. It was going into an unharvested corn field. But after I thought about it I realized I must be mistaken, I do not know the exact number of acres of unharvested corn in SD at the moment. So therefore, the deer do not enter the corn and the unharvested corn has no effect on harvest. Right Jameson?...

Hey man, I was just trying to clarify what you were trying to write. Don't ask me what you think, I don't know. If you forced me to guess, I'd say not much.

[Jameson]

...Once the deer populations are 30 DPSM or more then the talk will turn to quality issues age structure ect . ...

I think you are correct.

And I don't think APR/moving the rifle season/etc will get anywhere. They didn't when we had more deer before, not sure why they would now.

[smsmith]

1.MDDI was created to address apr and when supporters figured out that that would not sell they switched gears to general population levels as that is an easier agenda to sell the rest of the hunters . 2. Once the deer populations are 30 DPSM or more then the talk will turn to quality issues age structure ect . 3.Most of the talk comes from QDMA members who bought into that program and went with that for a few years to try and educate the unknowing hunters on how to manage the herd . Well the majority did not follow their lead and now they want to legislate change to achieve their goals . Flame away

1. Wrong

2. What do you meant when they hit 30 DPSM? That discussion was going before the MDDI was formed, it has continued to go on, and will continue to go on. MWA put the agenda on the back burner for a year or two at the request of the MN DNR...but rest assured it will be back.

3. Wrong

[Farmsfulltime]

Of coarse the discussion has been going on before and will continue after higher populations are fact. Its all about controlling what other hunters do in the field . In other words they aren't passing this deer or that deer so lets change the law to force them to comply with what we perceive is the (Right ) way to deer hunt . I think if the busy bodies let it be and every hunter made up his own mind would be a freedom from excessive regulation , but that's not good enough for some as they believe they are right and all the others are wrong .

[smsmith]

Of coarse the discussion has been going on before and will continue after higher populations are fact. Its all about controlling what other hunters do in the field . In other words they aren't passing this deer or that deer so lets change the law to force them to comply with what we perceive is the (Right ) way to deer hunt . I think if the busy bodies let it be and every hunter made up his own mind would be a freedom from excessive regulation , but that's not good enough for some as they believe they are right and all the others are wrong .

Just like you do

[Jameson]

...I think if the busy bodies let it be and every hunter made up his own mind would be a freedom from excessive regulation ,...

I guess what is excessive? If every hunter made up his own mind about what were good regulations for themselves then we would be back to 1878 or whatever year before we had any regulation.

[Farmsfulltime]

Oh I suppose we could use modern game management as we have now , that's been working quite well for some time . Like party hunting regs as they stand now or buck regs as they stand now , or doe regs as they stand now of coarse changed as needed with population swings that are natural to game populations . There is a big difference between 1878 and what is being proposed by some groups . What is not mentioned is the system in place now has worked well over the last 30 years and really needs no major changes minor adjustments for current weather ect. The reason no one will practice so called trigger control is because the large percentage of us are very happy with the way it is and don't want to change a thing. Also explains why the calls for change from a vocal few fall on so many def ears

[Farmsfulltime]

Pretty clear I will type slowly, do as you wish in your hunting situation within regulations now in effect and leave other hunters to hunt the way they wish under current regulations = freedom to chose

I know it might be hard to mind your own but don't attempt to remove my choices under current regulations to hunt as I chose

Not that hard to understand but might be hard to accept

Maybe that's the problem after all

[laker1]

Overall I think Minnesota deer season runs real well as it is now. Just change the population modeling model and up the quota's in much of the state. Much of the north half can handle post fawn population of 40 deer/sq mile barring weather,wolves and over harvest. Much of our public land has 20-26+ hunter/sq mile,that is a lot and reaching hunter quality saturation etc..

You have to remember states across the country got and our scared of CWD

Get to farm country and deer density of 30 deer per sq mile is unrealistic with maybe 50 acres wooded in that sq. mile,might be lucky with 10 deer sq mile.

[smsmith]

I know it might be hard to mind your own but don't attempt to remove my choices under current regulations to hunt as I chose

Exactly what choices are being removed by auditing the population model and data collection methods? I'll tell you the answer....None.

As for your rants about APRs and other "choice limiting rules"...take it up with the DNR. That's who you can thank for them.

[Jameson]

Oh I suppose we could use modern game management as we have now , that's been working quite well for some time . Like party hunting regs as they stand now or buck regs as they stand now , or doe regs as they stand now of coarse changed as needed with population swings that are natural to game populations . There is a big difference between 1878 and what is being proposed by some groups . What is not mentioned is the system in place now has worked well over the last 30 years and really needs no major changes minor adjustments for current weather ect. The reason no one will practice so called trigger control is because the large percentage of us are very happy with the way it is and don't want to change a thing. Also explains why the calls for change from a vocal few fall on so many def ears

The MDDI isn't even about rule changes. Just raising the deer density some.

How about starting a new thread on potential 'excessive' regulation changes? The title should be "LETS HAVE SUCKY DEER HUNTING SO WE DON'T HAVE SUCKY REGULATIONS!!!"

[smsmith]

...........hypocrisy lives

[Jameson]

What happens in Silly town, should stay in Silly town. Please don't bring the rest of the forums down to that level.

[smsmith]

removed

[Farmsfulltime]

As everything discussed its all opinion on behalf of the poster ,some have expressed theirs and they are welcome the same as I have opinion also, there has been a lot expressed here that has nothing to do with audit. I would guess everyone of us has our own agenda to match our opinions

[laker1]

Actually I am surprised it has stayed very civil for the most part. That is a pat on the back for all for doing so.

[Jameson]

As everything discussed its all opinion on behalf of the poster ...

No it is not. Some sure, everything no way. Take the total number of reported deer/vehicle crashes in 2002 and compare it to the reported deer/vehicle crashes 2013 and come up with a percent decline and that is a factual number. It would be our opinions if that factual number has any relevance, but the number is fact.

These are good discussions when both sides have facts to support their opinions.

[creepworm]

No it is not. Some sure, everything no way. Take the total number of reported deer/vehicle crashes in 2002 and compare it to the reported deer/vehicle crashes 2013 and come up with a percent decline and that is a factual number. It would be our opinions if that factual number has any relevance, but the number is fact.

These are good discussions when both sides have facts to support their opinions.

Alright, seeing we need to know the exact acres of corn left standing in the state, we might as well look at everything that could have an effect on car deer collisions.

How many miles did each Minnesotan drive in 2003 compared to 2013? How many people report deer car collisions, not just to their insurance, in 2003 compared to 2013. 2013 was a late harvest, how many acres of corn stood for how many days compared to 2003. According to everyone I talked to, 2013 had a very weak rut. How does the rut in 2003 compare to 2013? Duration? Intensity? The spring of 2013 and after November 2013 were very cold and snowy. Deer were yarded up and in wintering areas for more of 2013 than average. How does this compare to 2003?

Without data, its all just talk. Worthless rumors

Bring the data.

[Farmsfulltime]

( Factual ) numbers can be brought forth and used to turn or slant any discussion isn't that what has the DNR has been charged with . Back to open opinion not hidden but out in the open let the DNR adjust the season to reflect an adjustment of the population a year or two maybe three in some areas , some good weather and there will be deer aplenty and with all game populations the numbers will vary across the habitat. Heck we might even experience some extra car kills .

[SmellEsox]

( Factual ) numbers can be brought forth and used to turn or slant any discussion isn't that what has the DNR has been charged with . Back to open opinion not hidden but out in the open let the DNR adjust the season to reflect an adjustment of the population a year or two maybe three in some areas , some good weather and there will be deer aplenty and with all game populations the numbers will vary across the habitat. Heck we might even experience some extra car kills .

The problem is without MDDI, (eventually) MDHA, and the listening sessions and the Commissioner's request, we would still have liberal limits across central MN. Wildlife's model says there are still piles of deer. Enough to even have an early antlerless season in some areas. Their model is not working, but they still put all their money on it.

[laker1]

I wonder what percentage of deer killed by vechiles is reported to insurance? I hit two deer in my life,the same year it happened in.

Killed both deer,almost zero damage to the pickup. Reported them to the Sheriff department so I could keep the deer. No report on my behalf to the insurance company.

Car killed deer could still be a index tho because a certain percent each year would be reported.

So many tools and it takes more than one.