Audit Push: Time To Act!

[smsmith]

225 ranked number 9 in the State in terms of deer harvested per square mile. You don't get that without having lots of deer to harvest.214 is even better. both are way better than 299 for sure.

One way units with Intensive designations "harvest" a lot of deer is thanks to internet/phone in registration. Local CO's report a strong suspicion that hunters are registering deer in Intensive units from other/adjacent units so they can continue to take more deer. Those suspicions have been passed on to at least one Area manager and have been met with zero attention.

Unit 214 is managed for 20 dpsm pre-fawn. If my unit (215) was managed at that level I would most likely never have become involved in any of these discussions. 20-25 dpsm pre-fawn is where most of the transition zone should be IMHO

Comparing 299 to any unit in the transition zone is an apples/oranges comparison. Worlds apart in habitat

[Jameson]

....To your belief that overharvesting does is the cause of the drop in population, go to page 5 of the deer harvest report. It shows the number of permits applied for, offered and the number harvested as well as the success rate. Over the last 3 years the doe harvest has been very pedestrian and the success ratio is also not out of the norm. Not as high as the middle of the last decade but in line with the 90's.

Using the data in that chart I have a hard time finding any correlation between antlerless harvest and your lack of deer.

To me,if you look at that chart and compare it to the weather patterns you see a much closer correlation.in 1995-1996.there was a bad winter as well as the next winter and you can see The harvest dropped then milder winters allowed the population and harvest to rebound even though permits were liberalized we had bad weather again around 2008-2009 which hurt the population and some bad springs in the following years that hurt them when fawns dropped.

If the weather patterns and the chart do line up as much as you say then the DNR isn't doing it's job of evening out the highs and lows and hedging it's bets against a hard winter. Might as well not even have a DNR, at least not beyond the law enforcement portion, with those type of results.

[PurpleFloyd]

225 ranked number 9 in the State in terms of deer harvested per square mile. You don't get that without having lots of deer to harvest.214 is even better. both are way better than 299 for sure.

[PurpleFloyd]

....To your belief that overharvesting does is the cause of the drop in population, go to page 5 of the deer harvest report. It shows the number of permits applied for, offered and the number harvested as well as the success rate. Over the last 3 years the doe harvest has been very pedestrian and the success ratio is also not out of the norm. Not as high as the middle of the last decade but in line with the 90's.

Using the data in that chart I have a hard time finding any correlation between antlerless harvest and your lack of deer.

To me,if you look at that chart and compare it to the weather patterns you see a much closer correlation.in 1995-1996.there was a bad winter as well as the next winter and you can see The harvest dropped then milder winters allowed the population and harvest to rebound even though permits were liberalized we had bad weather again around 2008-2009 which hurt the population and some bad springs in the following years that hurt them when fawns dropped.

[Jameson]

...Huh? Now you want them to be able to predict the weather in advance and adjust proactively? Holy cow.

Nope, just give out fewer deer tags in case we have a normal-harsh winter instead of giving out a bunch of tags and hoping for mild winter. Harvests should be more even and not have the wild swing we are experiencing.

[PurpleFloyd]

...Huh? Now you want them to be able to predict the weather in advance and adjust proactively? Holy cow.

[PurpleFloyd]

Nope, just give out fewer deer tags

So are you referring to fewer tags in total as in a lottery for all deer or just fewer doe tags?

[PurpleFloyd]

Deer are native to MN but what really was their historic range? Where there deer in central and northern MN prior to 1900? I spoke to one of my relatives that grew up here back in the early 1920s and he doesn't recall seeing any deer. It was open prairie back then and I don't think deer were very common. It wasn't until ag crops were developed further north that deer started moving further north because they could survive the weather then.

I hear ya PF...a few nice winters in a row and everyone talks about all the deer and pheasants. MN was on it's way to a million bird harvest about 3 or 4 years ago...but then we had a few bad winters in a row. Or did everyone start shooting hens??

[smsmith]

if there is a problem, name names and get them fired/privileges pulled/thrown in jail.

Working on it

Names have been named (Beau Liddell)...and will be again

[mntatonka]

Bot lets circle back to the rest of that link you posted. If you take the average of all seasons over the past 20 you get an average yearly harvest total of about 183,000. I would think 180,000 is probably about what we can expect on average with some years being lower and some higher. I also believe we will see harvest numbers and actual numbers increase again if we can put together a few warmer winters that don't stress the herd as much. In the end the chart in your link clearly show that the numbers of antlerless deer harvested over the past 5 years is not out of line with historic levels, is actually quite a bit lower than the period from 2001-2007 and is at a level where the deer herd can rebound without further reductions.

Actually, I get around 212,000 over the last 20 years

[smsmith]

Actually, I get around 212,000 over the last 20 years

Yup..about what I come up with

[PurpleFloyd]

Bot lets circle back to the rest of that link you posted. If you take the average of all seasons over the past 20 you get an average yearly harvest total of about 183,000. I would think 180,000 is probably about what we can expect on average with some years being lower and some higher. I also believe we will see harvest numbers and actual numbers increase again if we can put together a few warmer winters that don't stress the herd as much. In the end the chart in your link clearly show that the numbers of antlerless deer harvested over the past 5 years is not out of line with historic levels, is actually quite a bit lower than the period from 2001-2007 and is at a level where the deer herd can rebound without further reductions.

[hockeybc69]

From an article following the 2011 deer season:

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. Cornicelli and others have pointed to the poor conditions - mainly high winds - during the firearms opening weekend as a major contributor to the lower harvest, but McNamara is skeptical.

[Jameson]

...An even harvest is a fantasy.There is no such thing as an even harvest on any wild game species in a public setting. Look at Pheasants, Fish, Ducks, Elk, Moose and any number of species and you will see they ALL have peaks and valleys.

They all have peaks and valleys? More like bumps and puddles. The species you mentioned have relatively even regulations year to year. They don't go from having a 5 moose limit to none, nope go from a once in a lifetime hunt to no hunt. Parts of MN had a 5 doe limit not long ago, now is bucks only. Perhaps if last year when they were allowing 2 does to be shot by each hunter in some areas it would have been better to go with an any one deer limit so that we don't have the valley of bucks-only this year and instead only have lottery.

Even is fantasy, more even is not.

[ANYFISH2]

When the time comes that managed designation comes back more prevalently, I would like to see revert to one doe and one buck. Not the 2 does or one of each it is now. Myself and many others I know would fill tags with a second doe later in the year if the opportunity arose, instead of eating the main tag.

Now I know it was my choice, but at the time it was legal and didn't see the harm we may have been doing. We all learn as we go, some slower than others.

[PurpleFloyd]

...An even harvest is a fantasy.There is no such thing as an even harvest on any wild game species in a public setting. Look at Pheasants, Fish, Ducks, Elk, Moose and any number of species and you will see they ALL have peaks and valleys.

[PurpleFloyd]

From an article following the 2011 deer season:

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. Cornicelli and others have pointed to the poor conditions - mainly high winds - during the firearms opening weekend as a major contributor to the lower harvest, but McNamara is skeptical.

You reference Permits. The DNR sells licenses to any eligible hunter over the counter and issues permits to certain hunters in certain areas.

According to this link, the harvest number looks right but the license and permit totals don't.

2013 report

In that report, if you add all firearms, ML and archery licenses and permits

Firearms- 597000

Archery- 102000

ML-59000

I get 758000 licenses and permits sold in 2013

Compare to the peak year of 2003

Firearms 649000

Archery 60000

ML 9100

Total sales 718000 in 2003.

That being said, if 200k average is the sweet spot then over the past 20 years that the stats are available for we are actually above average over tha period. We are down right now, we were down in the 90's and higher last decade.Look at early 90's harvest levels, the number of antlerless permits offeserd and the way the population grew with favorable conditions. We are set up to see a similar increase right now if the weather cooperates.

On thing in that report that does jump out is the rise in bonus permit sales, which is something we more than likely both agree should be eliminated completely. I feel 1 deer per hunter total is enough and I suspect you do as well. I also don't feel archery should automatically be able to harvest a doe without a lottery permit.

[smsmith]

What I find "interesting" is that in 2003 the DNR said there's about a million deer in the state....and they continue to say the same thing

So...apparently hunters just aren't hunting hard enough anymore

^^^^that's exactly what Beau Liddell stated in ODN after last year's Ripley hunt

I believe the DNR sold more licenses and permits in 2013 than there were deer in the state.

[Farmsfulltime]

There is no way one deer per hunter is going to work long term , we will be right back at an exploding populations in some areas . When population was growing fast under lotto or controlled tags , what turned the tide was more does harvested , multiple tags are here to stay in some areas and conditions, Lets talk audit or start a new thread like we could call it deer same old thread

[smsmith]

There is no way one deer per hunter is going to work long term , we will be right back at an exploding populations in some areas . When population was growing fast under lotto or controlled tags , what turned the tide was more does harvested , multiple tags are here to stay in some areas and conditions, Lets talk audit or start a new thread like we could call it deer same old thread

Thought you were done with this discussion?

I didn't realize you were the controller of thread topics/content, thanks for letting me know

[smsmith]

Carry on Im done this horse is dead enough for me

Guess not

[hockeybc69]

I posted that info to show that our DNR said the sweet spot is around that 200k annual harvest mark. In previous pages there was discussion about what people on here thought it should be.

The 512,000 permits sold, I think is referred to just the firearms season.

[mntatonka]

That being said, if 200k average is the sweet spot then over the past 20 years that the stats are available for we are actually above average over tha period. We are down right now, we were down in the 90's and higher last decade.Look at early 90's harvest levels, the number of antlerless permits offeserd and the way the population grew with favorable conditions. We are set up to see a similar increase right now if the weather cooperates.

On thing in that report that does jump out is the rise in bonus permit sales, which is something we more than likely both agree should be eliminated completely. I feel 1 deer per hunter total is enough and I suspect you do as well. I also don't feel archery should automatically be able to harvest a doe without a lottery permit.

lottery areas worked in the early 90's to increase the herd, and it will work again.

One deer per hunter is not the answer statewide. In fact, no single regulation is the answer for the entire state. There will always be areas that have more deer than others, and will require individual management.

I definitely agree that archery hunters should have the same restrictions on harvest as all other seasons

[hockeybc69]

Quote:

There is no way one deer per hunter is going to work long term

You are correct. And the fact many areas were Intensive for as long as they were, werent going to work long term either.

To hit a sweet spot in populations, available tags need to be adjusted to maintain that.

Not rocket science.

[PurpleFloyd]

What I find "interesting" is that in 2003 the DNR said there's about a million deer in the state....and they continue to say the same thing

So...apparently hunters just aren't hunting hard enough anymore

^^^^that's exactly what Beau Liddell stated in ODN after last year's Ripley hunt

I believe the DNR sold more licenses and permits in 2013 than there were deer in the state.

So at this point the discussion comes down to the DNR's herd estimate?

It may have to because the antlerless harvest clearly shows that there have been many more antlerless deer harvested in the past without the population crashing and it shows that the current deer harvests,while lower than the peak, are still in line with what we have seen over the past 20 years.

[Farmsfulltime]

Two way street I would guess

[PurpleFloyd]

You are correct. And the fact many areas were Intensive for as long as they were, werent going to work long term either.

To hit a sweet spot in populations, available tags need to be adjusted to maintain that.

Not rocket science.

Not rocket science but the adjustment always needs to be reactionary and not proactionary. You don't know what the weather or the population will be like a year in advance. All you can do is adjust after the fact to bring numbers up or down which is clearly what is being done. They can't please everyone but the numbers are not out of the range we have seen over the past 20 years.

[PurpleFloyd]

I posted that info to show that our DNR said the sweet spot is around that 200k annual harvest mark. In previous pages there was discussion about what people on here thought it should be.

The 512,000 permits sold, I think is referred to just the firearms season.

Fair enough, I just wanted to make sure we are talking apples to apples. Right above your post I used only the firearms numbers to get the average of 180k number but someone wanted to use the total harvest number instead so if we are going to use the total harvest numbers, then it seems to make sense to use the total license sales as well because they show that firearms license sales are down from the peak while archery and ML have seen big increases.

On way or the other we just had a very bad winter and I suspect harvest, especially in the norther half of the state, will suffer for it. But reduced antlerless permits will help to rebuild the herd if the weather cooperates.

[Jameson]

....Is that what ou are promoting?

nope.

[smsmith]

But reduced antlerless permits will help to rebuild the herd if the weather cooperates.

I don't think anybody is going to argue against that point