Audit Push: Time To Act!

[Farmsfulltime]

So if the DNR asked everyones opinion a little more often then some would be happier? Minnesota is never going to be Kansas or any other large deer herd state that can be brought up . You can write off the arrowhead because to many limiting factor high quality feed, wolves, and weather ect good hunting but limited on stable population growth over the long haul, Heavy black earth farm ground not enough escape cover ,food unless a corn field is left standing ect , So the audit will mostly be about the transition area , audit will find that the population goals could rise some but not much , Those will be adjusted maybe 15 percent or so . two years of limited harvest and right back to multiple tags about 2019 or so after the audit , the people that wont shoot does wont and the one that do will same old same old

Remmember know one was shooting five deer anyhow , its been said less than doz in the state yearly filled all five

[hockeybc69]

The DNR could implement a very simple questionaire when you are purchasing your deer license.

They already do it for ducks, geese, rails, snipe, etc....

Why cant they ask questions about deer as well?

Simple questions that all go back to a central repository and can easily be extracted from databases and put together a report with little effort.

I have sent several emails to key people in the deer management structure requesting this and have not even received a reply back from any of them.

This is part of an email I sent to Tom Landwehr:

In a January 10, 2014 interview with Paul Telander, he is quoted as saying, “As I mentioned earlier, our aim is satisfied hunters, good hunting and minimal unwanted consequences for wildlife habitat, people, and deer themselves. That’s the target. We are committed to working with hunters and others to hit it.”

How is the hunter satisfaction going to be addressed? There has not been a deer hunter survey completed by the DNR since 2005. How can the DNR gauge the satisfaction of deer hunters when there is no single repository for that information to be gathered and analyzed? The only way that people can voice their satisfaction level today is to reach out to any number of different people in the DNR and voice their concern. There is no way for the DNR to know the scope of concerns if there is no single person or group collecting and managing that information from hunters statewide.

[DaveT]

So if the DNR asked everyones opinion a little more often then some would be happier? Minnesota is never going to be Kansas or any other large deer herd state that can be brought up . You can write off the arrowhead because to many limiting factor high quality feed, wolves, and weather ect good hunting but limited on stable population growth over the long haul, Heavy black earth farm ground not enough escape cover ,food unless a corn field is left standing ect , So the audit will mostly be about the transition area , audit will find that the population goals could rise some but not much , Those will be adjusted maybe 15 percent or so . two years of limited harvest and right back to multiple tags about 2019 or so after the audit , the people that wont shoot does wont and the one that do will same old same old

Did you read my post? They ask questions about what I shot and saw as well as my "opinion". That data could give a DNR a very real assessment of how many deer are in a unit when that data is collected from every hunter in the unit. Why don't you find a big ag forum where you can chat with like minded individuals about the benefits of draining wetlands, mowing ditches, and clearing every inch of the landscape of everything that doesn't benefit crops or cows?

[icehole10]

The problem with hunters opinions is that they vary. One guys hunts sun up to sun down the entire season and sees five deer, that may very well be a successful hunt in his mind, and be a horrible season to another. Not very reliable information to go off of. Its a matter of opinion.

[DaveT]

The problem with hunters opinions is that they vary. One guys hunts sun up to sun down the entire season and sees five deer, that may very well be a successful hunt in his mind, and be a horrible season to another. Not very reliable information to go off of. Its a matter of opinion.

You couldn't be more wrong.

If you only use one year of data it's worthless. Several years of data is very useful when compared to the other years. For example, they may find that for 3 years in a row, hunters in zone 666 saw an average of 1.2 deer per day hunted, shot 1 deer for every 3.4 days hunting, and had an average satisfaction level of 7 out of 10. Then when they do the survey the next year, those numbers are .7 deer seen per day hunting, 6.8 days hunted per deer shot, and satisfaction at 4 out of 10. You're polling the same hunters in the same zones with the same hunting styles from year to year. Yet you just realized as soon as you get the data that you have a problem in zone 666, and can make immediate corrections to the next harvest.

[flipper]

Did you read my post? They ask questions about what I shot and saw as well as my "opinion". That data could give a DNR a very real assessment of how many deer are in a unit when that data is collected from every hunter in the unit. Why don't you find a big ag forum where you can chat with like minded individuals about the benefits of draining wetlands, mowing ditches, and clearing every inch of the landscape of everything that doesn't benefit crops or cows?

Well you could always buy up some land here in southern MN and then you could manage it exclusively for deer. I'd be anxious to see how it would work out for you.

[Jaspernuts]

My buddy has an 80 acre oasis he manages for deer in the middle of this black prairie down here. We usually have about 20 different deer on the cameras every year. I would say it works pretty good.

[flipper]

About 15 percent of my land is wooded and I get a lot of deer too but it comes at a price. Taxes are terrible whether the land generates income or not. Just to clarify, what I meant is how will it work out for you financially.

[Farmsfulltime]

Already do the big ag forums , don't drain any wetlands, or collect any of publics money but I do have a vested interest in deer and deer hunting have hunted whitetails every year since 1970 or so in fact I would wager probably longer than most here , I have fed my share yearly to the tune of several thousand dollars easily . To keep this on topic I don't believe this audit will do any thing positive just more red tape generated to keep a special interest group appeased , Deer hunters cannot dismiss farming as an impact from higher populations

[hockeybc69]

Current system does not work.

As has been shown with the permit area 225 numbers the DNR has played with.

Right in your backyard.

[smsmith]

Deer hunters cannot dismiss farming as an impact from higher populations

That's true...and we have no intention of doing so.

I'd offer a flip side to that as well...farmers cannot dismiss deer hunters experiencing a poor quality hunt because they think any deer is too many deer (not saying you're one of them Farmsfulltime...but I'm sure you know some of them).

I'd say you may be wrong on the fact that the herd will never double in size...at least in some units. Unit 221 should indeed experience a 100% increase. There's no reason 15.4 dpsm (what it would be with a 100% increase) should be "too many" deer in the transition zone.

[smsmith]

Remmember know one was shooting five deer anyhow , its been said less than doz in the state yearly filled all five

I'd have to see who "said" that before I'd consider it anywhere near factual.

While a small percentage of hunters filled all five of their tags, Intensive harvest allowed hunters to continue to fill tags for their friends, relatives, neighbors, wives, kids, etc. when normally they would have been done hunting much sooner.

Whether a hunter shoots 5 deer and tags them all himself, or he shoots 5 deer , tags one and has others tag the other 4...he still shot 5 deer. Intensive harvest serves one purpose...to make hunters think deer are problematic and they need to be removed from the landscape.

Unit 221 was going to be Intensive again this year...even though the aerial survey showed 7.2 dpsm. Our area manager didn't care...he wanted to continue to whack the carp out of the herd. He also wanted early antlerless...so that would be what? 7 deer per hunter? In a unit with 7.2 dpsm and hunter densities right around 11 psm as I recall.

Something's broken...it needs to be fixed...we've tried fixing it through "appropriate channels". Time for an audit to show exactly what the heck is going on with the model, the data inputs, how the data is manipulated after the fact, why some area managers will keep a unit that's below goal in Managed and other area managers will make such a unit lottery or hunter choice, and to explore additional data input sources.

[mntatonka]

I'd have to see who "said" that before I'd consider it anywhere near factual.

your best buddy Lou said it a few years ago.

[BLACKJACK]

If you only use one year of data it's worthless. Several years of data is very useful when compared to the other years. For example, they may find that for 3 years in a row, hunters in zone 666 saw an average of 1.2 deer per day hunted, shot 1 deer for every 3.4 days hunting, and had an average satisfaction level of 7 out of 10. Then when they do the survey the next year, those numbers are .7 deer seen per day hunting, 6.8 days hunted per deer shot, and satisfaction at 4 out of 10. You're polling the same hunters in the same zones with the same hunting styles from year to year. Yet you just realized as soon as you get the data that you have a problem in zone 666, and can make immediate corrections to the next harvest.

Not sure I agree with a survey if it gets too detailed AND a year after the fact, when you buy your license. Who remembers how many ducks you shot last year? I probably remember how many deer I shot but if you ask me, a year later, how many deer a day I saw during 10 days of hunting.... Garbage into the survey, garbage out.

[SmellEsox]

I don't think the audit is going to tell us where the population goals should be. What I hope it shows is how accurate their models are. Where population goals should be will be determined by the stakeholder process. But if their population modeling is horsemanure, then population goals are irrelevant. What good are goals if you have no idea where the population is at.

I also am very leery about why we have such conservative seasons this year. I think someone on top told area managers that we are going to have conservative seasons. I'm not convinced that area managers wanted this. In fact, I think many area managers wanted to continue the status quo and keep hammering antlerless deer. So those of you that think that DNR managers are doing the right thing this year in reaction to the condition of the deer herd are wrong. They are doing this because someone on top told them to back off. They are doing this because MDDI and MDHA got on their back. DNR wildlife are about the only people who think there are a lot of deer (well, them and mntatonka, PurpleFloyd, and farmsfulltime). I honestly don't know any hunter in my area that thinks there are a lot of deer around. And I know a lot of deer hunters.

[hockeybc69]

Quote:

Garbage into the survey, garbage out.

True. But there are questions that could be asked that dont input garbage, therefore its not garbage out as well.

The DNR did a survey in 2005. Heck, use the same questions as they did then.

None of the questions asked how many deer you saw the previous hunting season.

The questions simply asked about satisfaction type things.

Try it again and see how todays satisfaction survey stands up to the one that happened 10 years ago.

[mntatonka]

... DNR wildlife are about the only people who think there are a lot of deer (well, them and mntatonka, PurpleFloyd, and farmsfulltime). I honestly don't know any hunter in my area that thinks there are a lot of deer around. And I know a lot of deer hunters.

I never said there are a lot of deer across the state, only in particular areas, and that you shouldn't lump the entire state into the same group. I don't think you'll find anyone (including floyd and farms) that say there's plenty of deer in every area of the state.

[SmellEsox]

I never said there are a lot of deer across the state, only in particular areas, and that you shouldn't lump the entire state into the same group. I don't think you'll find anyone (including floyd and farms) that say there's plenty of deer in every area of the state.

I know. Just giving you guys a little dig. Not trying to rile you up.

[smsmith]

your best buddy Lou said it a few years ago.

I believe it even less now

[BLACKJACK]

True. But there are questions that could be asked that dont input garbage, therefore its not garbage out as well.

The DNR did a survey in 2005. Heck, use the same questions as they did then.

None of the questions asked how many deer you saw the previous hunting season.

The questions simply asked about satisfaction type things.

Try it again and see how todays satisfaction survey stands up to the one that happened 10 years ago.

Satisfaction type questions would work, numbers type questions a year later don't. I shake my head every time they ask the waterfowl questions.

[BLACKJACK]

DNR wildlife are about the only people who think there are a lot of deer (well, them and mntatonka, PurpleFloyd, and farmsfulltime). I honestly don't know any hunter in my area that thinks there are a lot of deer around. And I know a lot of deer hunters.

I see a lot of deer around -- you should see what they've done to my 1.5 acre soybean food plot. I know, I know, small area, small sample size...

[SmellEsox]

Funny you should mention that BLACKJACK. Here's an interesting read about crop depredation in Indiana.

https://www.extension.purdue.edu/extmedia/FNR/FNR-265-W.pdf

It says in there that soybeans will not lose yield with light to moderate deer depredation on the leaves of the plants. It also says in the report that raccoon depredation on corn is 8 times that of deer. They are especially bad where surrounding lands are wooded. Hmmmmmmm.

[LandDr]

Mine must be a small sample size also.

I spent several years sitting the the DNR Oversite Committee for pheasants. We had a great ground with great ideas. Every year we presented these ideas to the DNR as our recommendations to improve the pheasant population in MN. Out of all of the recommendations we made to the DNR, only one was implemented, and that one was to increase the bag limit later in the year which really doesn't do anything for the pheasant population anyway. It was so frustrating that most of the really good people on that committee left. So good luck changing the DNR and their agendas. Not saying you can't change the DNR, but I would recommend having a Plan B in the mean time.

[DaveT]

Not saying you can't change the DNR, but I would recommend having a Plan B in the mean time.

Amen, brother. My plan B is actually plan KS. I've also implemented plan IA, plan MO, plan WY, and plan IL in the past.

[ANYFISH2]

I think most of our problems started with lou c.

Now please understand, I am not going to bash Lou C. I feel he did a fantastic job of changing the managment focus of the DNR. I agreed with and still do in liberalizing limits (not more than managed unless EXTREME circumstances exsist) when our harvestable surplus allows. He expanded opportunities, and was very accommodating when spoken too.

The problem has risen from not reacting fast enough when signs of reduction began to be clear. He did not do enough to maintain the current model thus rendering it virtually useless. His philosophy was flawed because our deer populations are not as stable just about anywhere in the lower 48. We have more predators, unpredictable seasonal weather, and varied landscapes. To may variables to put ONE philosophy to work and stick with it, just because it seem so right early on.

I hope the audit, if it were to happen, would be the light that flips on and helps to change the depts. Current philosophy. As the status quo, isn't working for the hunting community.

[PurpleFloyd]

My strong preference would be to bring in outside experts in deer management. Whether OLA would bring some of those folks in or not...I have no idea.

[smsmith]

Then we can get back to trying to push the big buck platform

Get the herd to where it should be, keep it there, and the "big buck platform" will take care of itself.

[PurpleFloyd]

If you believe that I have some land that I want to sell you in 225 that is over run with deer every single year....

[smsmith]

If you believe that I have some land that I want to sell you in 225 that is over run with deer every single year....

I have no doubt that hunters and groups like MWA will at some point push for rule changes for big bucks. All I'm saying is that there's an example right across the Mississippi/St. Croix. No APR's...yet they crank out huge numbers of big bucks (and little bucks, and does, and fawns) year after year. MN used to do that too (before most anyone had ever heard of APR's)

[PurpleFloyd]

It did? I guess I am not familiar with your area.I know the Ashland,Washburn,Bayfield,Iron county area pretty well and they always had big numbers but lots of forest land.

We used to have very low numbers. In the 70's it was something to talk about if we even saw a deer when out riding around with dad.Now when I drive around to different work sites it is rare to not see several deer in the morning and most are does with fawns. In Sconnie the numbers still seem to be good around our patch and where the mother in law lives but the population may have been dented by the wolves. The turkeys, however really took a hit this past winter up there.

Give it a few seasons with the lower doe tag allocation and the numbers will rebound,providing nature cooperates.