Audit Push: Time To Act!

[bowhunternw]

[i would love to see proof of this. I sure don't remember all these special interest groups being in a tizzy. I think it was a deliberate shift by DNR from a management philosophy that had some concern for deer numbers and the quality of hunting, to a philosophy of hammer the does and keep numbers down. I don't think special interest had as much input as what a new breed of DNR biologist wanted to do in MN. I think the deliberate reduction of the population was led by DNR.

I am sure that you already have read this but there is an explanation of how the goals were set. Down the page a bit. http://news.dnr.state.mn.us/2014/01/10/dnr-aim-is-satisfied-deer-hunters-healthy-deer-herd/

[smsmith]

I would love to see proof of this. I sure don't remember all these special interest groups being in a tizzy. I think it was a deliberate shift by DNR from a management philosophy that had some concern for deer numbers and the quality of hunting, to a philosophy of hammer the does and keep numbers down. I don't think special interest had as much input as what a new breed of DNR biologist wanted to do in MN. I think the deliberate reduction of the population was led by DNR.

Me too. I've spent a fair amount of time scouring the interwebs for "evidence" of the "over population" of deer in MN around '03-'05. Most everything I found was generated by the MN DNR. I won't dispute there was more crop and forest damage at that time than there is now...but I have a hard time believing it was all that bad.

Hunters and citizens of this state were sold an idea by the MN DNR because they didn't want to manage deer at the levels they were at. Managing deer costs money and the MN DNR would rather spend that money on prairie and bur oak savanna restoration.

Plenty of states had and still have far more deer than MN did at the peak (and those states are much smaller in land mass than MN) and the world isn't coming to an end in those states.

[smsmith]

SMSmith is more of a habitat nut than anyone I know. He should have his own blog and weekly podcast for the amount of work he does and information he gathers up and shares as he goes about his work. I've learned more from him than any box full of books and magazines i've read.

Just put 2 and 2 together

Thanks for the kind words...habitat is a bit of an obsession for me.

[Pzswenj]

Ah, so other states have higher densities or total populations. Do they have the same habitat? Same weather? Just curious if that factors at all into what a healthy overall number might be?

My personal feeling is similar to several others: The populations that we had where I hunt (NE Minnesota) back in the 2000's were not sustainable. It was hard to not run into a deer anywhere they were so thick. Driving at night was downright scary with the numbers that were out there. All the old timers in our hunting area could not believe the numbers that were around, and all of them remember the bad times.

Populations where I hunt now are low, particularly compared to the "glory years". But we've also had a couple of tough winters, and a change in forestry with the downturn in logging in my immediate area due to mill closures. Not exactly unexpected in my eyes...

[SmellEsox]

Ah, so other states have higher densities or total populations. Do they have the same habitat? Same weather? Just curious if that factors at all into what a healthy overall number might be?

My personal feeling is similar to several others: The populations that we had where I hunt (NE Minnesota) back in the 2000's were not sustainable. It was hard to not run into a deer anywhere they were so thick. Driving at night was downright scary with the numbers that were out there. All the old timers in our hunting area could not believe the numbers that were around, and all of them remember the bad times.

Populations where I hunt now are low, particularly compared to the "glory years". But we've also had a couple of tough winters, and a change in forestry with the downturn in logging in my immediate area due to mill closures. Not exactly unexpected in my eyes...

Funny you should mention sustainability. We hear all the time about populations not being sustainable yet we never hear of a study done in MN that shows what a sustainable level is across our different habitats. We hear about being above carrying capacity, but we never see any data that shows what that carrying capacity is or how it was derived. We hear about crop damage and that there are too many deer but we have no data that documents said crop damage and what caused it and what is an appropriate level of crop damage that can be tolerated.

[laker1]

Crop damage reports are documented in many cases and some of the regions have solely a wildlife personnel working with farmers to stop crop damage in various ways and also lessen the call by farmers to decrease deer populations. Many wildlife managers in some areas have farmers and politicians after them all the time.

That said in much of the northern forest area deer populations could be increased substantially.

Been to many open to the public DNR wildlife meetings concerning wildlife and it is quite common to have less than 6 people to show up and telling their point of view.

Yes we over harvested the last decade and populations are too low,but I look at the seasons this year I think are O'kay.

Long term average much of Minnesota can't sustain a two deer limit per person consistently.

[PurpleFloyd]

Toto- We're not in Kansas anymore.

[hockeybc69]

The DNR has told us for several years in a row now after gun season that the reasons for the lower harvest was due to standing crops and bad weather.

You would think the population should at some point just be bursting at the seams if there was all this refuge in the standing crops every year.

[PEATMOSS]

I think it was a deliberate shift by DNR from a management philosophy that had some concern for deer numbers and the quality of hunting, to a philosophy of hammer the does and keep numbers down. I don't think special interest had as much input as what a new breed of DNR biologist wanted to do in MN. I think the deliberate reduction of the population was led by DNR.

I'm no DNR cheerleader, but I don't hold them in disdain as you seem to. I'm wondering what you think their motivation was to reduce numbers if it was not the groups I listed?

[PEATMOSS]

Crop damage reports are documented in many cases and some of the regions have solely a wildlife personnel working with farmers to stop crop damage in various ways and also lessen the call by farmers to decrease deer populations. Many wildlife managers in some areas have farmers and politicians after them all the time.

That said in much of the northern forest area deer populations could be increased substantially.

Been to many open to the public DNR wildlife meetings concerning wildlife and it is quite common to have less than 6 people to show up and telling their point of view.

Yes we over harvested the last decade and populations are too low,but I look at the seasons this year I think are O'kay.

Long term average much of Minnesota can't sustain a two deer limit per person consistently.

Nice post. I think it's pretty clear that a lot of folks only want to keep the populations bloated so that they can have their cake and eat it too.

With the higher populations it's easier to bully thru their trophy hunting regs.

[PurpleFloyd]

Me too. I've spent a fair amount of time scouring the interwebs for "evidence" of the "over population" of deer in MN around '03-'05. Most everything I found was generated by the MN DNR. I won't dispute there was more crop and forest damage at that time than there is now...but I have a hard time believing it was all that bad.

Hunters and citizens of this state were sold an idea by the MN DNR because they didn't want to manage deer at the levels they were at. Managing deer costs money and the MN DNR would rather spend that money on prairie and bur oak savanna restoration.

Plenty of states had and still have far more deer than MN did at the peak (and those states are much smaller in land mass than MN) and the world isn't coming to an end in those states.

It seems to me that CWD was a big driver in the decision to reduce herd density. I am not saying I agree with it but that stands out as the tipping point. CWD was first discovered in Dane County in 2002 and that fits into the time frame for when permits went up and then later the population began to decline.

[PurpleFloyd]

I think it was a deliberate shift by DNR from a management philosophy that had some concern for deer numbers and the quality of hunting, to a philosophy of hammer the does and keep numbers down. I don't think special interest had as much input as what a new breed of DNR biologist wanted to do in MN. I think the deliberate reduction of the population was led by DNR.

[PEATMOSS]

cwd

I was derelict in not adding that to the other factors I had listed. As Rick Perry would say....ooops

[smsmith]

It seems to me that CWD was a big driver in the decision to reduce herd density. I am not saying I agree with it but that stands out as the tipping point. CWD was first discovered in Dane County in 2002 and that fits into the time frame for when permits went up and then later the population began to decline.

Well, you could be correct. However, Marrett Grund repeatedly denied in a phone conversation that CWD or BTB had ANYTHING to do with the idea of herd reduction in MN.

If indeed it did, I'd sure appreciate some transparency from the folks I help to pay manage our resources.

[Farmsfulltime]

Farmer complaints are brought up here a lot as they should be as the deer feed heavily in ag fields . We all know it and no its not just raccoons . Some here might find this hard to accept but the reason the farmers are not lodging complaints in some areas is they don't whine and complain at every little thing . Ive never made a formal complaint to the DNR as a lot of my neighbors haven't. . Just because theres no complaints doent mean the damage isn't done . Another point to consider is DNR staff is in the country side daily doing their jobs and see the deer in the fields and the damage don't distort it its way more state wide than 3 million . IN fact money spent on deer hunting is brought up continually ill bet there more food plot value alone in the state consumed than 3 million dollars. Maybe bring the audit on lets look at the whole picture, it might not be as rosy as some would like .

[Farmsfulltime]

The reasons people plant food plots is to draw deer to a certain area and to provide good food for them . What do hunters plant forms of ag crops because that's what the deer want pretty simple im sure no one plants corn in a food plot to feed raccoons .

[smsmith]

im sure no one plants corn in a food plot to feed raccoons .

I'm sure you're right. I also know that coons and bears are far more likely than deer to destroy corn foodplots.

[PurpleFloyd]

[Farmsfulltime]

This idea of only raccoons eating in corn fields is insane . Every hunter in the woods wants their stand to be on the travel route between corn and bedding im not going to taste that koolaid . The next thing you will try to tell me is grazing soy doesn't hurt yields or 10 deer on a 12 acre alfalfa field and its still light is not affecting yield .

REALLY

Lets try the audit and look at it

[smsmith]

This idea of only raccoons eating in corn fields is insane . Every hunter in the woods wants their stand to be on the travel route between corn and bedding im not going to taste that koolaid . The next thing you will try to tell me is grazing soy doesn't hurt yields or 10 deer on a 12 acre alfalfa field and its still light is not affecting yield .

REALLY

Lets try the audit and look at it

I don't recall saying "only" raccoons eat in corn fields? I also don't recall saying that hunters don't set up on travel routes to corn fields...that would be foolish to state.

As far as trying the audit and taking a look at everything...I'm all in

[hockeybc69]

Quote:

The reasons people plant food plots is to draw deer to a certain area and to provide good food for them . What do hunters plant forms of ag crops because that's what the deer want pretty simple im sure no one plants corn in a food plot to feed raccoons .

Let me dissect this a little.

Why do I plant corn and beans?

1) I want some easily accessable food if snows get really deep or crusted. Corn and beans both supply that.

2) I get all the seed for free.

3) Roundup ready..... Show me any other food plot seed that has that handy little moniker on the bag

If there was anything else available on the market that would fulfill all 3 of my points above, I would be using it.

My costs to do corn and beans is pretty reasonable. I do 3 acres of each.

The corn I put down 100 lbs per acre of fertilizer that costs me under $100. I dont fertilize my beans at all.

Glyphosate I spray at 1.5 qts per acre. Thats a total of 9 qts used. I paid $38 this year for a 2.5 gallon jug of 41% gly. Pretty much used that up.

Fuel for the tractor. No idea, but we put between 10 and 15 gallons into it during the spring at $4 a gallon. Thats about $60 on the top end for fuel.

Now I consider my "farming" a hobby and truly get great enjoyment out of it. So while some other guys are on the golf course spending $100 for a round of golf and drinks after, I am out on our land playing farmer dude. So I dont consider my investment into these foodplots to be anything more than recreational time and money spent.

Oh, and by the way. In roughly 10 years of food plotting, I have 2 crop damage complaints.

1) the bear that moved in and flattened over an acre of my corn starting in early september

2) the neighbors beef cattle that got out and ate over half of my 3 acre corn plot.

[Farmsfulltime]

Smsmith you obviously do some food plots on your land . We all know now there are not enough deer on your hunting land . Do they consume all of your plots yearly. Think about it 25 dpsm how much area could that group consume in one year . Oh the deer will browse some to supplement the ag crops when they are not available but given a choice they will browse the ag crops every time.

An audit might be the right thing get a real good picture of what is really happening out there to ag

[smsmith]

Some interesting reading

http://www.agriculture.purdue.edu/fnr/cropdamage/crops/manage.htm

Note this statement: "raccoons were the source of 87% of observed depredation events."

Full report done in conjunction with IN DNR https://www.extension.purdue.edu/extmedia/FNR/FNR-265-W.pdf

While the research is out of IN, an internet search will show the research is widely accepted throughout the midwest.

Does that mean deer don't do crop damage? Of course not. Does it mean that many folks may have the mis-perception that deer are the main culprit of crop damage? Perhaps

[mntatonka]

Some interesting reading

http://www.agriculture.purdue.edu/fnr/cropdamage/crops/manage.htm

Note this statement: "raccoons were the source of 87% of observed depredation events."

Full report done in conjunction with IN DNR https://www.extension.purdue.edu/extmedia/FNR/FNR-265-W.pdf

While the research is out of IN, an internet search will show the research is widely accepted throughout the midwest.

Does that mean deer don't do crop damage? Of course not. Does it mean that many folks may have the mis-perception that deer are the main culprit of crop damage? Perhaps

so you're telling me that coons are eating the tassels off the stalks? And eating the stalks right down to the top ear across entire fields? Or heck, even eating the stalks to the ground in the first month? And all those hoof prints in my corn fields are coons wearing deer-shaped shoes?

[Farmsfulltime]

Hockey sounds like a lot of fun was had . Now multiply those problems times one hundred provide a little more fertilizer . Same problems with the bears and cattle then double the deer population harvest whats left sell it in an up and down market take the profit pay the bills . I know its the life I have chosen that doesn't make the deer loss easier to take

[Farmsfulltime]

[smsmith]

so you're telling me that coons are eating the tassels off the stalks? And eating the stalks right down to the top ear across entire fields? Or heck, even eating the stalks to the ground in the first month? And all those hoof prints in my corn fields are coons wearing deer-shaped shoes?

I'm not telling you anything. I'm sharing university based research

[Farmsfulltime]

I have a 13 acre field right now that we wont even harvest no tassels , no centers , no pollination , no kernels of corn , just expense and probably will be the easiest deer hunting I have ever had, It wasn't raccoons that's for sure

[Farmsfulltime]

I would guess we don't have Indiana deer here, these are Minnesota deer they do it differently here I can provide photos later today

[smsmith]

I would guess we don't have Indiana deer here, these are Minnesota deer they do it differently here I can provide photos later today

I don't doubt that you have deer damage to your corn, that's not my point.

What I'd like to see is OUR DNR actually doing some research, perhaps in conjunction with UM. Anecdotal evidence is just that...anecdotal.

Let's actually track, document, and deal with deer crop damage. Let's actually track, document, identify, and attempt to remedy areas with significant numbers of car/deer collisions. Let's do the same with forestry concerns. There are tools available to do these things, let's start using them.