Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
swedishpimple

DNR Consperiacy Theory-- Bonus & Managed Permits

29 posts in this topic

Here is something that I can't get off my mind. In times of distrust with nearly every instution in this country I wonder about our very own MN DNR.

Should the DNR charge extra for Bonus Tags...Managed Tags..Intensive Harvest Tags???

I am wondering if the DNR has become accustom to the extra revenue from extra tags sold? We pay for the tags and the DNR raises extra revenue whether we fill them or not.

What would stop them from "padding" their counts to keep the cash tree growing.

If they did not make extra money from extra tags sold or if they had to pay for that blue tyvek paper to print all of those extra tags things may look different on the counts.

For the most part I put a lot of faith in the DNR especially with local staff, but when it comes to money and the higher ups....whats a few thousand "fake" deer here and there to bring in a few dollars when they know darn well we won't shoot them..because they don't exist.

Too much time in the deer stand allows the mind to wander sometimes...what do you guys think???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are spending too much time in the deer stand, or alone in your bunker.... JK.

I really think that it was a bad year, and that the deer were populated in some areas, and vacant in others. AS of Monday night, the crops were 80% harvested, compared to 98% of the corn last year at that time. Take into consderation that most of the corn was harvested in the within the last week, and that we were in a very windy, crappy weather pattern, and you really did have the makings of a poor opening weekend. I was bowhunting that morning, but one walk outside that morning told me to abandon my plans of hunting where I had been seeing the big bucks and go to another location in a valley to get out of the wind. I had lots of action all morning where people on top of the bluff had none.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they don't exist huh? Maybe not under your stand, but obviously the DNR has done their research and feel confident that there are excess deer in certain areas that they feel the need to make surplus tags available, be it management or intensive harvest tags.

Let's not build a bandwagon to allow others to come in here and rip the DNR apart with ill feelings over the State Convention and the mishandling of funds.

The DNR does an excellent job managing our resources. If a person wants to have more influence with the management of our deer herd, join an outdoors organization such as MDHA if you haven't already. Or even attend some of the meetings with the DNR available to the public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will give you the weather...it has been bad, but the harvest does not apply to the entire state. Harvest means nothing to many of the guys hunting North Central and Northeastern, MN. Even in Northwestern,MN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen the fewest deer of any season I've hunted this fall. Two different areas of the state. Still plenty of deer around but definitely down from the highs 3-4 years back. I'll be surprised if 250,000 deer are killed this year. The amount of hunters reporting poor luck is just too great. I've got no problem spending $13 for a bonus tag. I buy one along with my regular license at the beginning of every season. Our easterly neighbors get 2 antlerless tags with their regular license and add'l ones are like $2. They've also got 400,000 more deer than we've got. I surely don't think any conspiracy is happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sweedishpimple is right on the fact that $$$$ do drive alot of the infulences and decisions of the higher up...but, if anything, in our area anyway, the DNR is way low on it's estimates...Last year when the governor toured the TB area he actually made the statement that the DNR had no handle on what the actual deer population was in that area...givin it was early winter, post-rut and the deer were concentrated to some extent on feed sources, but in a hour and a half tour nearly 200 deer were observed...I hunt to the west of this area and up until the past two years we were intensive, then they switched us to managed...there are no less deer...if I take a drive for an hour and half in the evening I will usally see over a hundred deer on a pretty regular basis...early fall or early winter...last winter the USDA was putting out hay and setting up camera's and "special fences" that they hoped could be used to keep deer out of livestock feed areas...they set several of these up within a 4 mile radius of our camp and several other areas as well...they also set up test fences at sites where the deer were raiding farmers haystacks...anyway, the deer didn't seem to be bothered to much by the fences...they just jumped over, avoiding the "high voltage". A MN DNR officer was at my brother in laws and they observed three deer "ON TOP" of one of his haystacks near his cattle yard...somewhere along the conversation he asked the officer why, with all the deer around did they cut the harvest goals by switching the area from intensive to managed...the officers response..."I have no idea!" Seems the people in the field have a good handle on whats going on but the "policy" makers rely more on "data"...some of which I think was the landowner/hunter surveys about aceptable deer populations...If anything...in "most areas" up north I think the DNR is way low on their population estimates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there is any kind of conspiracy but deer numbers are down all across the state. Its not secret that many intensive harvest areas have dropped down to lotto area in one year, potentially from over harvesting. Like I said, not a conspiracy but the DNR certainly made a ton of extra money off the of extra tags and that extra money may have affected certain decisions the past few seasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I'm chomping at the bit to see is if lottery areas that had low harvests this year compared to last will get a chance to move back to managed. It seems like its quick to move one way but not so much the other. Registration reports at local stations in the northern half of our county were down 50 percent or so according to the local paper. The weather and standing corn had a lot to do with it. That might benefit us in the long run in terms of moving back to managed. I'd like to see it sooner rather than later, however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think so. Do I think that could cause them to lean a little one way or the other on some areas that could go either way? Probably, but I know we've got three different types of areas around the town of Long Prairie & the herd doesn't vary much from one side of the road to the other, but apparently it does as you move away from here throughout each of the areas.

As usual I think the people that spent more time a field & moved deer if they had to did fine, but the harvest was definitely down. There's a lot more sign in some of the areas I hunt than what we saw, so the deer are there, they just didn't want to move. If they're tucked in your neighbor's woods & he doesn't disturb them, they're going to stay there until the shooting stops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok- If this is true what happens in the future when there are no deer left?

Sounds like everybody jumps on the dnr for a poor season. Crops were bad timing with the southern part of the state,weather was terrible, and last years winter, while not harsh was a little longer than those in the past.

I have made it up to the SUperior National forest 3 times this year and each time someone in our party has seen wolves. If there are wolves around there are deer around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another hunter brought up an interesting point and I thought it would apply to this threat a little. A lot of extra tags have been handed out over the past several years. This has probably led to a much greater harvest of button bucks and a decline in the buck population overall.

Kind of like our economy, things were great when guys were shooting a lot of extra deer, but now we might be paying the price for all that shooting. Disclaimer: this may depend of what area of the state you hunt it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The harvest will also be down because the number of extra permits were down and lottery areas were up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and the purpose of the intensive and management is to reduce the deer population. That is part of the DNR's job as well. Our deer are too high in these areas and need to be reduced. When there aren't enough deer around then we go back to lottery or whatever. Then when we get higher numbers the number of tags available goes up. It's what all wildlife management authorities do. They determine how many of each species is an acceptable level of harvest without significantly depreciating their umbers and still providing an enjoyable experience for the hunters. Even in our zone, in the best of years, we may not see or shoot a deer. That's hunting. I don't think there is any conspiracy on the part of the DNR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what some people would like more of is consistency. I don't think it would have been as bad if they had went from Intensive to Managed, but to take it all the way down to lottery and then only issure a few permits, that is kind of shocking, but maybe they didn't like the numbers they saw. Its too bad though, because one lottery season can wipe out a couple of years of buck management if alot of the 1.5 and 2.5 deer someone was trying to let get big, get shot because they are the only deer one can take.

And yes, I think that most Minnesota hunters, when asked with the question of if they would rather shoot a small buck, or not shoot one at all, are going to say that they would rather shoot a small one. Some might disagree with me, but I think that is the sentiment that the DNR got from their survey a few years back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In all the talk of deer numbers what is the management goal of deer per mile I have heard 12 per mile statewide which to me is nuts.

With the different habitat areas throughout the state some should be higher and others lower.

In any event I absolutely believe the weather patterns we are experiencing is the major factor in numbers seen.

Also remember license sales are down, which means not as many hunters afield moving the deer around, combined with the crop harvest you have to many issues to blame before the DNR.

Lou is the numbers guy with the DNR for big game and from communications I have had with him I feel that he is truly out trying to do what is best with the information he has available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like everybody jumps on the dnr for a poor season. Crops were bad timing with the southern part of the state,weather was terrible, and last years winter, while not harsh was a little longer than those in the past.

I would think this is the case more than bad conservation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Lou I trust.....

That would be your first mistake! Kidding ... Actually, license sales are not down. This year (not including 3B because the sales aren't complete), 417K people bought an 'A' season license compared to 415K last year. Also, bonus permits numbers are up from 160K to 180K (which is the same number that was sold when the all-season license came with 2 tags). But (to all you revenue fans out there), total revenue is DOWN as a result of eliminating the all-season deer and multi-zone buck license. I've said all along we were making people buy a license they didn't need and the change would benefit hunters to the tune of a $1M+ reduction in revenue. Looks like that may be the case.

That's it so far ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will we see another spike in sales next week with guys buying their muzzle loader license???

I like the Ala-Carte approach because I do not bow hunt yet. I also have not bought my muzzle loader tag yet. So you can one more there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will we see another spike in sales next week with guys buying their muzzle loader license???

I like the Ala-Carte approach because I do not bow hunt yet. I also have not bought my muzzle loader tag yet. So you can one more there.

Without a doubt. People always wait until the last minute. As of Thu, I think only 15K have bought one. My best guess with All-season included last year was about 35K muzzleloaders statewide. Heck, I haven't bought mine yet!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What exactly is the DNR's goal for the deer population? I'd like to think that getting the entire state close to a managed area as possible. I see this as a good balance, enough deer to keep the hunters happy but not enough to cause any problems in each given area.

I think people get frustraited when they see wild swings from lotto to intensive harvest and back again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me too, but it makes more sense this way for the most part. A lot easier for Lou to know how many bowhunters, how many ML hunters, etc. I can also see guys not wanting to pay for the big license if they don't bowhunt. Now why they wouldn't want to bowhunt, that I can't really understand...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"DNR does an excellent job managing our resources."

Are you serious?

The MN DNR couldn't manage the titmouse population if they had a barrel full of cheese!

They pull these deer regulations out of their butt have no real idea of what is going on with local deer populations.

michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mn_archer,

Personally, I think they are doing just fine. Maybe you just aren't the bow hunter you think you are. whistle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Posts

    • which models of striker bibs/ coat?
    • That little doe is a sweetheart. Reminds me why I gave up hunting. But I did it for more than six decades from MN to MT to AK and Canada. Before somebody jumps in with a snide  comment, I don't care if YOU do it but it is just not for me any more. Carry on. Nice pix....couple nice looking bucks.
    • I fish for monster bass too. But yeah, when one is the master of walleyes one tends to be an elitist... 
    • I agree; stay away from the extended warranty.  If my dealership (Village Chevrolet) won't honor the original warranty, what makes you think they will honor an extended warranty?  This problem was discovered well before my warranty ran out and they still treated me like an ugly sister...
    • Knock yourself out. IMO, pro basketball is a terrible sport.         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------           Here's what they think of the Gophers in Iowa.....    
    • Wait till they lose the game.....  
    • You two must be elitist walleye guys. 
    • I can't say I'm much in agreement with Gary Johnson on this issue and I can admit it. I will say however that it makes more sense than the deal Pence struck with Carrier.   1. The carrier deal handed away state money while still being a net LOSS of jobs in that state. Johnson's program enticed new business into his state and resulted in a net GAIN of jobs and probably tourism dollars as well.  2. I think these types of deals should be handled as locally as possible. It's called representative government. Maybe it makes sense in the New Mexico deal that it be handled at the state level since it probably effects the state as a whole at least to some degree but I don't know. The Indiana deal should have been handled locally, especially if any of the tax cuts promised were property taxes. Those benefit communities at a more local level and the jobs saved benefit communities at a more local level. The state government possibly should not be handling these things but the Federal Government most assuredly should not be involved in these deals.  3. I'm pretty sure that the threat of interference with federal contracts had much more to do with the Carrier deal anyway so why did they give Carrier any tax breaks? I thought Trump was a tough guy and a strong armer? In the New Mexico deal, tax cuts are about the only leverage someone would have to bring that extra revenue and jobs into the state.   I'll say it again, I'm really not in favor of the government picking winners and losers. I do think the Pence deal is something that happens every day but the only difference is it happens at a local level and you don't have a blow hard President-elect taking credit for it normally. Time will tell whether it was a good deal or if the rest of the manufacturing community will hold the Government for ransom now like every professional sports franchise does these days.    Gary Johnson is in favor of replacing the current Tax code with a 'Fair Tax" system.
    • I think Purple means, our BullHeads!
  • Our Sponsors