Audit Push: Time To Act!

[smsmith]

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.

Exactly. Why not use every tool that's available?

[DaveT]

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.

I highly doubt the percentage of people who report/don't report has changed much. The same percentage of the population is not reporting for the same reasons now as 10 years ago. No full coverage, minor damage, no insurance, no license, warrant, etc.

As far as miles driven, I would assume there are considerably more miles driven now than 10 years ago. That should result in more car/deer accidents if the deer population is constant.

[Jameson]

...Without data, its all just talk. Worthless rumors

Bring the data.

I hope someone that has them at their fingertips will. I'm going hunting.

[hockeybc69]

MN DPS deer car collisions are down around 50% over the last 10 years....

Gee, overall harvest is down around 40%.

Any correlation in those 2 numbers at all?

But our DNR says year after year after year.... we are going into the fall with about a million deer.

Deer must be getting very smart as to avoid hunters and cars I guess. Maybe the data is just a bunch of hooey....

[PurpleFloyd]

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.

[PurpleFloyd]

http://www.deercrash.org/states/minnesota.htm

This link goes to 2008 and shows crashes were cut by nearly 2/3 from 1994-2008 even though the deer population increased substantially during that time. That pretty much puts a nail in the coffin of the theory that you can correlate crashes and population directly .

[PurpleFloyd]

MN DPS deer car collisions are down around 50% over the last 10 years....

Gee, overall harvest is down around 40%.

Any correlation in those 2 numbers at all?

But our DNR says year after year after year.... we are going into the fall with about a million deer.

Deer must be getting very smart as to avoid hunters and cars I guess. Maybe the data is just a bunch of hooey....

http://www.deercrash.org/states/minnesota.htm

You are saying that deer crashes can't go down while the population goes up ?

[SmellEsox]

http://www.deercrash.org/states/minnesota.htm

This link goes to 2008 and shows crashes were cut by nearly 2/3 from 1994-2008 even though the deer population increased substantially during that time. That pretty much puts a nail in the coffin of the theory that you can correlate crashes and population directly .

That is assuming their population estimates are accurate.

[SmellEsox]

The harvest in 2003 was 290,525 and in 2008 was 221,837 despite there being 74,000 more licenses sold in 2008. So how could the population be estimated to be increasing through 2008 when the harvest declined 24% despite more licenses sold? That is why an audit of their model needs to be done. What kind of model estimates an increasing population when the harvest is steadily declining?

[smsmith]

What kind of model estimates an increasing population when the harvest is steadily declining?

The kind the MN DNR uses

[PurpleFloyd]

What kind of model shows deer crashes going down while road side carcass removal is over 2x that number? And that is the argument being used to support the claim that the DNR numbers are wrong.

[DaveT]

That is assuming their population estimates are accurate.

Exactly. I bet the estimate the DNR gave for each of those years was, wait for it...

[laker1]

Your model could show a high deer population,but than a hard winter-old mother nature can change that quickly.

[SmellEsox]

To be honest Purple, I think the carcass data actually matches the population better than the DNR estimate. I think they were hugely underestimating the population back in the 90s and way overestimating from the mid 2000's on. Hunting and deer sightings were far better in the 90's than the 2000s for me and many of the hunters I know.

[candiru]

The harvest in 2003 was 290,525 and in 2008 was 221,837 despite there being 74,000 more licenses sold in 2008. So how could the population be estimated to be increasing through 2008 when the harvest declined 24% despite more licenses sold? That is why an audit of their model needs to be done. What kind of model estimates an increasing population when the harvest is steadily declining?

In '03 the all-season license was available that allowed the taking of multiple deer. Grandma and aunt Betty didn't need to get a license. Now they are back to putting in for their doe permit every year.

[laker1]

Late 80's and early 90's were very good hunting and I agree populations may have been under estimated,but also seasons were more conservative in the 80's,thus building up of surplus of what I call breeder does(age 2.5 and older) that were capable of producing twins every year.

Also I think they were estimating populations different. May have still been doing pellet counts than?

Yes use as many tools or methods as possible to compare data yearly,deer populations depend on so many variables that change constantly,winter,hunting pressure,predator mortality etc.

[PurpleFloyd]

To be honest Purple, I think the carcass data actually matches the population better than the DNR estimate. I think they were hugely underestimating the population back in the 90s and way overestimating from the mid 2000's on. Hunting and deer sightings were far better in the 90's than the 2000s for me and many of the hunters I know.

The problem is that what everyone thinks is the case is largely local. You saw more in the 90's than now, we see more now than we did then and they are bigger and others see different than both of us and in the end no matter what the DNR does, it's all statistics and we all know that statistics can be made to make any case you want if you present them the right way.

I liked the whole debate better last year before this thread when we got nearly mutual agreement that we should worry about Habitat as the key to making sure there are deer around because that is way better than burying our head in stats that will be different next year than they are this year and will continually keep us looking back rather than forward.

[smsmith]

I liked the whole debate better last year before this thread when we got nearly mutual agreement that we should worry about Habitat as the key to making sure there are deer around

Not much of a debate with nearly mutual agreement

[laker1]

Without habitat,all other factors mean nothing.

[PurpleFloyd]

Not much of a debate with nearly mutual agreement

think about that for a moment.

[PurpleFloyd]

Not much of a debate with nearly mutual agreement

Since I have your attention, would you care to elaborate on why you were basing your assertions about the DNR numbers on vehicle collisions when that article I posted showed they were flawed when compared to carcass removal numbers?

[smsmith]

think about that for a moment.

Habitat I've got...and so does this area for miles and miles in every direction. I feel for many of you folks down south where farmers have destroyed much of the habitat in the name of increased corn production.

[PurpleFloyd]

Habitat I've got...and so does this area for miles and miles in every direction. I feel for many of you folks down south where farmers have destroyed much of the habitat in the name of increased corn production.

You may have the wrong type of habitat or the habitat may be missing one crucial element when hunter pressure is high and that is refuge.When the pressure of the season is on,where can the deer go to get away from the pressure? If the answer is nowhere then you need more refuge for the deer to go to. Plant 5 acres of corn and don't shoot deer in it and don't push them out of it. You can do the same with cedars or other shrubs/trees etc. You need to match the habitat to hunting pressure and where you are located I imagine there are a lot of urban cowboys that hit the closest woods they can find,which is probably your neck of the woods.

In the South Central to South West part of the state I came across some pretty big chunks of land that were purchased by the Nature Conservancy(Not that I support them in any way) that don't allow hunting. We are talking 600 acres or more per section.Manage your property that way and get others to do the same and you will have deer.

Did you by chance miss my post about the deer crash data?

[SmellEsox]

Since I have your attention, would you care to elaborate on why you were basing your assertions about the DNR numbers on vehicle collisions when that article I posted showed they were flawed when compared to carcass removal numbers?

The problem with your stance is that you put your trust in DNR's estimates. What I see is deer collisions and carcass removal declining rapidly in the last several years which indicates a rapidly declining population.

[laker1]

The Nature Conservancy has done a great job,which more organizations would be so ambitious in saving habitat,including much shoreline habitat.

Yes also in much of northern Minnesota their land is open to hunting.

Yes as a hunter I support them and organizations that support habitat. Maybe off main subject,but it was brought up.

[DaveT]

You may have the wrong type of habitat

I chuckled. You need better habitat, Stu.

[Farmsfulltime]

For that matter our own DNR has and does do a great job with managing lands and habitat , their tasks are varied as the lands in Minnesota . Their lands are also open to public hunting . This is not off topic as no habitat no game , we all recognize that weather the habitat is ag fields or food plots if your going to have deer they need a place to live . I am sure we will have full hunter participation this year and many years to come . Some hunters will shoot a deer every year some don't care to that's what it all about . Where the ag fields and brushy cover are there plenty of deer to be had maybe even too many in some locals

[Farmsfulltime]

From reading these threads it sounds like sm has plenty of a-1 cover habitat , how many cameras do you have out are you seeing no deer at all , is it really that bad or maybe not the right type of deer or numbers ??

[PurpleFloyd]

Since I have your attention, would you care to elaborate on why you were basing your assertions about the DNR numbers on vehicle collisions when that article I posted showed they were flawed when compared to carcass removal numbers?

[SmellEsox]

That is where you are wrong. I am not trusting any estimates at all. The MDDI seems to trust any that don't come from the DNR and none that do.

My stance is that population stats will never be as accurate as the MDDI is looking for and even if they get close they still have you looking to the past and not to the future.

As far as your last paragraph goes, it is universally accepted that the deer population grew from the 90's through the mid 2000's and yet the data shows a reduction in deer collisions and carcass removal over that period. That negates your assumption.

I think the population was increasing till about 02 or 03 and then antlerless harvest began reducing the herd. Harvests will support that. So do deer collisions. I think by the mid 2000s, the herd was well on its way to significant decline and that was the goal of DNR. They just went too far. And DNR population estimates say the herd was continuing to rise through the late 2000s. I think their model is not working. As excessive permits continued to be sold and the harvest declined almost annually from 2003 to 2013, the DNR said the herd was increasing until recently. Something is wrong.