Online petition for DNR management audit

[hockeybc69]

Thanks to Stu for posting this in the Audit thread. I felt getting a specific post with the info was needed so it doesnt get lost in the other thread.

Here is a letter from Brooks Johnson about the petition

Hello!

I've started the petition "MN Legislative Audit Committee: Perform audit of MN DNR Deer Model and Herd Monitoring Techniques" and need your help to get it off the ground.

Will you take 30 seconds to sign it right now? Here's the link:

http://www.change.org/p/mn-legislative-a...ring-techniques

Here's why it's important:

A planned 9% reduction has cut the MN deer herd 50% in less than 10 years, and our DNR refuses to acknowledge it has happened.

If you feel the herd has been reduced further than scheduled in your hunting area, show your support by signing and sharing this petition in your social circles.

Every year our elected select a handful of state agencies for evaluation. Our DNR deer model could use an evaluation, and some ideas on how to better monitor and manage the states deer herd.

More info on Brooks' Blog at MNBowhunters.org

Thanks!

Mille Lacs Whitetails Qdma

[delcecchi]

How about this as a population measure?

Quote:

Grand Forks Herald

One in 88 Minnesota drivers will hit deer this year

By John Myers Today at 9:30 a.m.

Minnesota drivers will face a 1-in-88 chance of hitting a deer on the state’s highways this year, according to a report released Monday by the nation’s largest auto insurance company.

State Farm’s annual report estimates that Minnesota drivers will collide with 37,549 deer in 2014.

Minnesota drivers have the 8th highest odds of hitting a deer among the 50 states, according to the report, down from 6th highest in last year’s report. The lower number of deer expected to be struck reflects the decline in Minnesota’s estimated deer population, which has dropped in recent years due to hard winters and high hunter harvest levels in the previous decade.

According to Minnesota Department of Natural Resources data, the statewide deer harvest peaked in 2003 and has been generally declining, along with the population, since then. The statewide buck harvest is down more than 27 percent over that period.

Wisconsin drivers have the 7th highest odds of striking a deer in the U.S., – 1-in-85 – the same as last year. Wisconsin drivers are expected to hit 47,669 deer this year.

North Dakota drivers have a 1-in-120 chance of striking a deer, the 16th highest in the nation, while South Dakota drivers have 1-in-82 odds, fifth highest.

West Virginia drivers face the highest odds of hitting a deer, 1-in-39. But Pennsylvania drivers will hit by far the most deer – 123,941. But because Pennsylvania has so many more drivers, they have a 1-in-77 chance of striking a deer, the second highest in the nation.

Drivers in Hawaii face the lowest odds of striking a deer – just 1-in-10,281.

“Whether you live in Pennsylvania or Hawaii, it’s important that drivers are practicing safe driving habits and watching out for animals on the road,” State Farm spokeswoman Ann Avery said in a statement releasing the report. “Wearing your seat belt and practicing defensive driving tactics could make a significant difference.”

State Farm releases its annual deer collision reports using its own claims data and state licensed driver counts from the Federal Highway Administration.

Minnesota and Wisconsin drivers are more than twice as likely as the national average to hit a deer. Nationwide, there are some 212 million licensed drivers on the road and they struck a total of 1.25 million deer, for 1-in-169 odds.

And if you do hit a deer, get ready to dig deep: State Farm says the average national cost per deer collision claim average is $3,888, up 13.9 percent from 2013, when the average was $3,414.

In Minnesota the most frequent months for deer collision are November and October, when hunters are afield and deer are mating and moving more, followed by June, when newborn fawns are beginning to move around.

In 2012, 175 deaths on U.S. highways were the result of collisions with animals, with deer being the animal most often struck, according to the Insurance Information Institute and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

While deer collisions are expected to go down in Minnesota, they are projected to go up 21 per cent in Indiana. Ron Regan, executive director for the Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies said those fluctuations are caused by changing deer populations, changes in roads, and changes in hunting seasons as well as weather.

[SmellEsox]

Wait a minute! I just read in Outdoor news that the population hasn't changed at all and the reason for reduced harvest is only because of a reduction in permits. So which is it?

Sarcasm intended!

[Jameson]

How about this as a population measure?...

If we take the state collected vehicle/deer collision data the deer herd is down about 40%. The state doesn't want to use their own data, but would rather use State Farms data.

[delcecchi]

If we take the state collected vehicle/deer collision data the deer herd is down about 40%. The state doesn't want to use their own data, but would rather use State Farms data.

That is only fair, since State Farm uses the MN DNR data...

[flipper]

LOL

[Jameson]

That is only fair, since State Farm uses the MN DNR data...

Then why are they different?

[Bureaucrat]

I just signed the petition. Who's next? Let's blow past the naysayers and get this done!

[leech~~]

How about this as a population measure?

I heard something about this on WCCO news this morning. The cute little gal said to "watch out" because Deer Hunting season is starting soon and the means 1 out of 5 Minnesotans may hit a Deer!

I thought maybe since the Deer were starting their rut and becoming more active may play just a bit more into it then a few weekends of Deer hunting!

[spivak]

Pity the poor deer. More than there ever were historically in Minnesota--have to fill in for the elk(mostly gone) and the moose (beating its way north)and the woodland caribou (ever see one of those?). Need big antlers, carry lots of meat on its bones, and needs to stay away from cars. We want lots of them under our stands come fall and out of our yards, our farm fields, and no eating of young trees the rest of the year. They need to act like we see them on our insipid hunting shows and fulfill the images we have of ourselves. Oh yeah, and they need a state agency to manage all of this so we can benefit from it all. If the DNR would only allow things to happen as they should! Make it be so.

[PurpleFloyd]

Never a better solution than asking the bureaucrats in the government to save us from ourselves .with their track record of fixing things what could possibly go wrong?

[NWKR]

That is only fair, since State Farm uses the MN DNR data...

From the article you posted:

"State Farm releases its annual deer collision reports using its own claims data and state licensed driver counts from the Federal Highway Administration."

[PurpleFloyd]

Pity the poor deer. More than there ever were historically in Minnesota--have to fill in for the elk(mostly gone) and the moose (beating its way north)and the woodland caribou (ever see one of those?). Need big antlers, carry lots of meat on its bones, and needs to stay away from cars. We want lots of them under our stands come fall and out of our yards, our farm fields, and no eating of young trees the rest of the year. They need to act like we see them on our insipid hunting shows and fulfill the images we have of ourselves. Oh yeah, and they need a state agency to manage all of this so we can benefit from it all. If the DNR would only allow things to happen as they should! Make it be so.

+1bazillion

[delcecchi]

That's what I get for trying to snark without rereading the article. It mixed State Farm and DNR stats and the old guy remembered wrong.

[smsmith]

Never a better solution than asking the bureaucrats in the government to save us from ourselves .with their track record of fixing things what could possibly go wrong?

Bureaucrats already run the DNR. So far you're accurate on the record of those running that Dept. Why not ask for a separate set of bureaucrats to see if the first set isn't doing what they're supposed to? Attempting to get the DNR to listen doesn't work...so you either stay happy with the first set of bureaucrats or seek out another set.

Politics runs everything...I don't like it anymore than you do..but its the reality of this country now.

[PurpleFloyd]

Good idea. Let the blind lead the blind. The liberal mindset of some in this state never ceases to amaze me.

Who audits the auditors?

[smsmith]

Good idea. Let the blind lead the blind. The liberal mindset of some in this state never ceases to amaze me.

Who audits the auditors?

Which brings us back to doing nothing..i.e. maintain the status quo....i.e. complacency

Not my cup of tea

[hockeybc69]

Quote:

The liberal mindset of some in this state never ceases to amaze me.

I would appreciate not being called a liberal..

I want answers, and we are not getting any answers as it stands.

I have emailed my wildlife manager with a series of questions and concerns. No replies. I have copied his boss and his bosses boss. No replies.

There is no reason why I shouldnt get a reply and their thoughts on what I am asking about.

If they refuse to work with us, well then we have to go about it another way.

[BLACKJACK]

I would appreciate not being called a liberal..

Ahhh, nothing like a good chuckle with my coffee!!!!

[BuckSutherland]

128 signatures as of this morning. Completely pathetic. Cmon people get off your @$$es and do maybe just a little something!!! Takes ya two minutes to sign your name and forward it to some friends to do the same.

[fr0sty]

That low number could also indicate less support for the audit than many expect.

[flipper]

That low number could also indicate less support for the audit than many expect.

Yup, maybe people are thinking this through.

[laker1]

I am not have to for a audit,but there modeling techniques have to change. It should be as simple as a meeting and acknowlegement of this and it is done.

They did listen and we got the deer seasons exactly as we requested.

If that doesn't work in the next year,than ask for a audit.

[smsmith]

They did listen and we got the deer seasons exactly as we requested.

If that doesn't work in the next year,than ask for a audit.

My understanding is that it took an "executive directive" on Comm. Landwehr's part to make the season structure look the way it does. Whether he will remain as strongly committed to a more conservative season structure in the future is unknown. He did tell regional and area managers he wanted a more conservative season structure last year with fewer Intensive and Managed units...and the result was MORE of each.

The time is now to ask for an audit of the population model and data inputs. If a person would support an audit at anytime (now or in the future)...then the time to do it is now.

[Bureaucrat]

I am not have to for a audit,but there modeling techniques have to change. It should be as simple as a meeting and acknowlegement of this and it is done.

They did listen and we got the deer seasons exactly as we requested.

If that doesn't work in the next year,than ask for a audit.

What we have now was not as simple as a meeting and a request. It took many meetings and many persistant individuals to attend those meetings and refute the notion that all is well, that no problem existed. The "big" whitetail organizations wouldn't touch the issue with a ten foot pole. It had to be done by individuals.

It took months of relentless pursuit to change the topic from "nothing to see here, it's just the wind and standing corn" to "maybe winter was bad and we have some pockets where we're off."

Those who've been on the frontline of this have had to dig hard for data to refute the kool aid that's been dished out and bought by so many. They've been relentless in questioning why evidence showing a severe population problem in areas is simply disregarded in population modeling.

What makes this worse is the alarming amount of hunters that are not engaged. I appreciate the half dozen or so on this site that fight against the audit for the sake of fighting. It's the other 499,000 that aren't in the discussion that really frustrate me.

Maybe we deserve a complete collapse. The mindset of "Somebody should do something" is looking a lot like "somebody should do something, as long as it's somebody other than me."

[PurpleFloyd]

It's not for the sake of fighting. It might just be that some of us understand that nature is not like making cookies.

Even if someone had unlimited funds and came up with a perfect modeling method it would still be reactionary and will still have the same population fluctuations we are seeing over the past 20 years.

[laker1]

I had zero problem of getting all the data I wanted from a Area wildlife Manager and much of the formula used.

I once had data back to the 1980's. I don't know if I can still find some of it.

[SmellEsox]

It's not for the sake of fighting. It might just be that some of us understand that nature is not like making cookies.

Even if someone had unlimited funds and came up with a perfect modeling method it would still be reactionary and will still have the same population fluctuations we are seeing over the past 20 years.

Totally disagree. The population was driven down first by hunting. And I don't think we are so stupid that we don't think the population will fluctuate. And I think that you are smart enough to know that they can manage those fluctuations at a higher level.

[PurpleFloyd]

It's not for the sake of fighting. It might just be that some of us understand that nature is not like making cookies.

Even if someone had unlimited funds and came up with a perfect modeling method it would still be reactionary and will still have the same population fluctuations we are seeing over the past 20 years.

[SmellEsox]

That is the funny part. On one hand the MDDI is beyotching about how the population was driven down by hunting on one post and then the next post they are exalting the Glory Days of the last decade when we were shooting record numbers of deer. The irony in that is amazing.

Maybe they were talking about the glory days of when there were more deer. Not so much the negligent harvest strategy. Maybe if we didn't go on an antlerless rampage back then, we'd still have a decent population of deer.